I think many people do care about language. Others are tired of being told that things have connotations that they clearly do not have.
Not too long ago, I had a long discussion with a UU (on Reddit) who was absolutely convinced that sentences like “gerrymandering is one of the the ills of our political system” was an attack on chronically ill people. I’m sorry, but metaphor just doesn’t work like that. Yes, there is always some ambiguity in language. But that doesn’t mean that language means whatever the heck we want it to mean (or fear it means).
In her above post, Bek is similarly pointing out some simple rules about how our language works.
To object to idiosyncratic interpretations like the ones floated around “worth/worthiness” is not an attempt to be divisive. It is an attempt to retain one’s sanity and avoid being gaslit (<—- overused term, but sprung to mind.)
I agree that people care, or these discussion boards would not be nearly as full as they are. Balancing all our perspectives is not easy, but it is important to hear each other out and do what we can to find common ground. I think we are actually doing pretty well on that, overall.
I have come to this Article II discussion late, but I support the revisions that Kara and Julie have been working on. After a Town Hall meeting with my congregation, I can report that most would like to retain the 7 Principles in some form while adding the 8th. Thanks to both of you for taking the time to put together a compelling amendment. Thanks, too, to everyone who has entered the discussion, raised questions, suggested changes, and deepened the conversation.
This is a really good discussion thread; I support the retention of the 7 principles with the revisions Kara and Julie are proposing. When this is submitted as a amendment, please let us know so that we can sign a support statement. Thanks!
@DebJ all the amendments have already been submitted to meet the priority deadline, but it is my understanding (from the last word from some UUA folks) that the posted documents of support may remain posted here on these threads. If I am understanding this correctly, it would be the delegate who is presenting them (regardless of who originated the idea–thus, my #460 and #147 both originated from an earlier original draft by me, and were worked on separately in our congregations before being recombined and workshopped again. It is Janet Leavens who created the support document because she will be presenting the amendment–see thread under #147).
Thus, I believe that @member1990 needs to create a support document for this amendment and post it here on this thread, because she will be presenting. I tagged Julie earlier with information that @BekWheeler has created a template that others are free to use (please be sure to do a “save as” so you don’t overwrite the template with your individual amendment info).
Thanks, Kerry. I’m just late (really late) coming to this discussion and not adept at navigating these discussion threads. But I appreciate your work revising the current Sources (so much better than the proposed Inspirations) as well as the work, on revising the current Principles. I know the priority deadline has passed, but understand they are still accepting amendments and they must still be reviewing support documents. So I will do my best to indicate my support for the fine work revising both the current Sources and the Principles
You’re right, my mistake–I should have said that all the amendments meeting the Priority deadlines have been submitted by June 5. I do hope that people will continue to weigh in! Thanks for our interest and your appreciation of everyone working hard here. It’s never too late to drop in on the party! At least, I hope so . . .
The amendment I submitted focuses solely on Section C-2.2, so it isn’t really the entirety of what @KaraStebbins drafted, and a document supporting it would not really fit under Kara’s #486. Here is what I submitted on June 4th, including an intro that may or may not be included when the priority amendments are published online:
This proposed amendment is based on the Principles and Covenants section of Submission #486, submitted by Kara Stebbins of the UU Fellowship of Madison County, and subsequently edited with the author’s permission.
This amendment adds back and modifies the current 7 Principles by incorporating action verbs and adding a modified 8th Principle to dismantle systemic oppressions.
Section C-2.2. Principles and Covenants.
We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, affirm these principles, and promise our mutual respect, trust, and support as we enter into and live these covenants:
• We recognize the inherent worth and dignity of every person and celebrate the diversity and uniqueness of all life;
• We acknowledge and respect our place in the interdependent web of all existence;
• We encourage a free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
• We support the right of conscience and the use of democratic processes within our congregations and in society at large;
• We practice justice, equity, and compassion through loving action in all our relationships;
• We commit to understand and learn how to dismantle systemic oppressions, including racism, in ourselves and our institutions;
• We give generously of our attention, time, talents and resources, as we adapt with the changing world;
• We seek to build a world community with the goal of peace, freedom and justice for all.
@member1990 I understand, just not sure where else on the Discuss board you could post the document of support for the amendment that derived from this one?
Some thoughts about the 15-congregation amendment process, from Donald Wilson, who used to be on the GA Planning Committee:
"“Unlike how the amendment process was run for this GA (ie at the discretion of the moderators and board), the process you’ve mentioned is bylaw and subject to little to no interpretation. I wouldn’t wait however. You need to get the petition from the UUA Board Secretary in the next couple weeks, and you have to have it turned Into the Board before February 1st.”
“If one congregation has a thought, send an email to 50 others and say “we are discussing X. What do you think?”
That is also the kind of thing that we have District and Regional assemblies for, both in person and virtual.
That is also the type of thing your religious professionals should be talking about at their regular meetings with their colleagues like minister Association chapter meetings.
It is the responsibility of your board president and other trustees to be deeply aware of the affairs of your closest congregations.
You discover by being in relationship and talking to one another.
You coordinate by email and phone call, same as we have for the last quarter century.”
“You don’t even have to have a congregational vote. You just have to get their board to sign off.”
“ETA: IMPORTANT NOTE!!!
You HAVE to check the bylaws of the local congregation. There are congregations scattered thru the entire Association who DO NOT let their Boards sign off on such a proposal and REQUIRE it to be a Congregational vote.”
Please note that the Blue Boat Passengers group will remain open for commenting for a couple more weeks (while this Discuss topic will be closed tomorrow). Anyone who wants to use the group to coordinate for the 15-congregation amendment process is welcome to do so. Donald’s post is taken from that public, lay led group, with permission, and there is other information and discussion there that may be relevant to you. Please be sure to review all rules and the pinned post before you post anything. Thank you.