I am concerned about nondemocratic editing (the word wordsmithing seems perjorative to me) by the commission, moderators, etc., after this GA. That is almost, but not quite, a reason to turn down the entire project. My understanding is that the second year was to gove consideration to what is accepted in the first year, and that is not possible if a group is working nontransparently to make changes. I understood the 2nd-year vote to be a confirmation of the 1st year’s vote, not a vote on something new.
Julie, I am ok with you submitting it however you want.
I understand - there are many who are not happy with the process, myself included. I’m still figuring it all out. Yes, one school of thought is to vote down the proposed revision this year because for many it came out of left field and many feel blindsided by the dramatic reworking of the bylaws.
Thanks! What I like are the retention of the 7 principles plus a modified 8th, and the addition of action words, which suits the charge to the commission. The members of my congregation who have expressed opinions overwhelmingly want the 7 principles retained. The feeling is that being sensitive to change and the future is all for the good, but recognizing the core of what drew and retained so many of us to Unitarian Universalism is essential.
1 Like
@member1990 and @klsteb2 , I would try to make it clear in submitting the amendment that collaboration has happened and continues now between the two of you and/or your congregations after this, if time!
I’m sure my congregation would be pleased with a note of collaboration, since it was particularly frustrating to us that we could only submit 2 of our own amendments. It was difficult for us to have to choose between amendments that made tweaks to the Proposed Revision vs. amendments that made as few changes to the Current Article II as possible.
Julie, I wonder if you are planning to write a brief “preface” to your amendment. That is what my congregation did, as a way of sort of “pleading our case” to the moderator to consider ours for priority.
I have no idea how the amendment prioritization could possibly be (or be perceived to be) fair. Maybe during the 22nd mini-assembly I will come to understand it better.
On another note, does anyone know when the amendments will be posted for all to see? Or will only prioritized amendments be posted? or ??
Kara - My preface will be short, and will include the points I mentioned above - my congregation has not held formal votes on amendments, but has held “listening sessions” where members have voiced their opinions and hopes. We delegates are free to vote our conscience in the formal voting process at the GA. The one request that rises above all others is to retain the 7 principles which meet all the bulleted functions cited in the Study Report in the Our Approach section, pages 13 and 14.
I believe the submitted Priority Amendments will be available after this submission window closes, and Delegates can then comment on them up until the mini Assembly on June 22. Those comments will aid the moderators et al in selecting the ones Delegates will then vote on.
I can’t really say my submission is a collaboration of our two congregations, since my congregations won’t have voted on it, but I will acknowledge the role your’s played in drafting it.
Thanks Julie! Best wishes
I agree with this rewrite. Thank you.
Julie - Is there a way as a delegate that I can officially “support” your amendment? I see that other ammendment submitters are colecting “support” signatures.
@Crosenbaum and @member1990 and @klsteb2 , there is a template that @BekWheeler made that anyone may use (just please be sure to do a “save as” and make a copy) to post on the thread of an amendment and gather support signatures. It’s posted a few places, so just look for the template and be sure to make a copy and repost.
Here is the support template – “save as” or “make a copy” on your own drive, and then tailor that to your amendment: Delegate support for XXX Amendment (#XXX)-SAVE AS COPY-Then tailor - Google Docs
For other amendments already with support documents, search on their initial posting toward the end – that’s where folks have been posting amendment support docs
1 Like
Where are the submitted amendments posted?
UUA targets 6/14 for posting the 88 submitted amendments
1 Like
Thoughtful thread. My late comment: I like “worthiness” because of the history of commodifying/monetizing people which “worth” seems to imply.
Surely, out of context, that makes great sense. “Worth” all by itself can indeed be construed as financial, monetary. BUT note, in the 1985 principles it refers to “inherent worth and dignity.”
I know that this will seem technical, but when you have a construction A and B, that conveys that A and B are the same KINDS of things.
Apples and oranges are both fruit
Green eggs and ham are both a breakfast thing
Supple and limber are both traits of good health
Goats and donkeys are both farm animals, etc.
So A and B are examples of the same KIND of thing.
By contrast,
Goats and sky scrapers are DIFFERENT things
Apples and dogs are DIFFERENT things
Etc. We don’t say those together because they are different and clashing.
In our UU history, we talk about ‘inherent worth and dignity”. These are the same sorts of things. Merit and dignity would seem similar. But $$ and dignity are NOT the same sorts of things.
So, “Inherent worth and dignity” both anchor in goodness.
The interpretation of slavery and monetary valuation is NOT what we are talking about. Only what emerges if you divorce language from its context.
Hence, “inherent worth and dignity” speaks of just that. ‘Dignity’ is a good thing. Hence ‘inherent worth AND dignity’ is likewise a set of two good things.
@KLusignan, @Janet, @UUFPMichael, @manningmiller @acmillard
3 Likes
I agree with this interpretation, though I understand the context others are referring to. As I’ve noted elsewhere, I could wish that disagreements on this kind of issue might be focused on the really big differences or the “heavy hitters” of new language in Article II, such as covenants. I find it interesting that @BekWheeler 's other thread directly proposing we examine this language still has (last time I looked) the most “hits” of any proposed amendment! I guess this means that many people do have views on this topic that they hold as important.
2 Likes
You are technically correct and I understand how this would bother someone whose job it was to be correct. Coming from someone who in the 7th grade cried because I couldn’t get transitive and intransitive verbs until I figured out if that was the only thing I couldn’t get I’d be fine, I can live with either. 
But I do think part of this entire revision process IS about coming to terms with the harm of the dominant culture. I hope we are able to stay in right relationship and hang in there and work on this over the next year. Thanks for your response.
1 Like
As a linguist, it is not my “job to be correct.” It is my job to understand language.
I’m sorry you didn’t have a 7th grade teacher who could explain transitive vs. intransitive to you…
It was not a matter of me explaining what was “technically correct.” It was a matter of me saying that is not how language actually works. I had thought you might look at the explanation and go “aha! ok, then.” You know, curiosity and hearing new information.
I reiterate, it is NOT my “job to be correct.” Talking about ‘worth’ utterly independent of the context of its phrase is just that — utterly independent of the context. In the UU context, it is affirming of human yes, worth and dignity. Inherent worth and dignity. @acmillard
2 Likes
My apologies! Failed humor. And yes it was interesting. And you are an expert and being ‘correct’ was intended to acknowledge that.
2 Likes