#51 | Frank Casper | Change the Current Article II

Submission 51
Frank Casper
The Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Atlanta, Inc. (Atlanta, GA) 3032

What is your suggestion or idea?

I suggest that the A2 Commission replace the Inclusion paragraph, Section C-2.4, of the current A2 with the following edited version of the original and consider its work complete.

Systems of power, privilege, and oppression have
traditionally created barriers for persons and groups with particular
identities, ages, abilities, and histories. This includes Unitarian
Universalism. We pledge to employ our Principles and Resources toward replacing
such barriers with ever-widening circles of solidarity and mutual respect. We will
strive to be an association of congregations that truly welcome all persons who
share our goal of true human dignity and freedom. We commit to being an association of
congregations that empowers and enhances everyone’s participation, especially
those with historically marginalized identities.

What is the reason for your amendment idea?

Neither the A2 Commission nor the UUA has presented a sufficient rationale for the radical changes they have proposed. The current reasons provided are irrelevant and border on the absurd. Section C-2.4 is the one paragraph that conforms to their agenda. It can serve as the bridge between the 7 Principles and 6 Sources, which so many want to remain intact as they are the core of UUism.

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

We had Paula Cole Jones give a presentation about the 8th principle, but that is all. She, however, presented the 8th principle as little more than a gateway to the proposed changes to A2. Nonetheless, my congregation has yet to sponsor a thorough discussion of the changes being proposed. This is, I think, true of most congregations. It is why, I think, that most UU’s have no idea about any of this. In this connection, it is unfair and wrong to blame the congregations, which is what the A2 Commission has recently done in its frequently asked questions document. This is the sole responsibility of the UUA and they clearly have not done enough to inform rank-and-file UUs that they want to dump the Principles and Sources. I suspect that they have done a poor job of this precisely because they have yet to establish legitimate reasons for the kind of changes they are proposing.


I could not agree more with these statements. Going further, and I don’t think it is possible to “tweak” the language current form of the proposal in a way that would make it acceptable. The whole proposal needs to be voted down, and then a multi-year bottom up process started, that solicits recommended changes from actual congregational members (not unlike what happened before the current Principles and Sources were adopted in 1985).


I totally agree that the rationale for the Proposed Article 2 is mushy and convoluted. We were essentially told by supporters of the Proposed Article 2 that if you don’t accept change, you are somehow out of touch. There is no discussion of why the principles are flawed. It’s been a “change for change sake” sort of argument by supporters.


agreed—and they are even stopping me from “too many” likes, hold being for a 24-hour period—and this when the discussion is closing in 2 days.

1 Like

welcome all persons who
share our goal of true human dignity and freedom…

  • many have addressed “share our goals” with modifications or replacement - hopefully alternatives can be crafted. Mine is in the #202 suggestion thread.

I feel the revised Article II is the right direction - definition of and covenant (action). I appreciate the energy that comes with more verbs in describing our association.