@beccaboerger, I like suggestion 1. I don’t disagree with suggestion 2, but someone else was the original author of “the Arts” addition, and I know it got a fair amount of support previously, so I didn’t mess with it much (just changed one word, because I like the root and associations of “emotion” more). The closing paragraph does address the joys and sorrows aspect though (and was re-added to this amendment at the request of someone in our congregation).
Personally, I agree with you that feature of addressing both joy and pain is especially true of art, which serves as solace in ways other sources might not and also addresses complex difficulties sometimes more effectively than prescriptive, fact-based, and other nonfiction/less expressive modes do. Would be interested to hear other’s thoughts as this part of the amendment hopefully goes forward.
@drc I think “our thing” is already taken. 
Unitarian Universalism is a religion–for tax purposes and in other ways. Organizations of similar-minded people that aren’t religious wouldn’t be congregations or other religious bodies (but, say humanist organizations, philosophical societies, or what have you.)
UUism is not the only religion that doesn’t necessarily require a belief in God or an afterlife and that welcomes doubt and free inquiry. I personally agree this needs to still be spelled out for us, though, and thus feel strongly about continuing to include a specific reference to our Sources, including secular ones.
“Faith” on its own is not a word I associate exclusively with theistic connotations, although I suppose as specified here, “our faith,” that would be the more usual read. (A really zealous atheist got mad at me when I spoke of an “atheist’s faith” (was thinking of existentialism, for example) and when I said that i am “still atheist in many ways.” Her argument was that atheism is absolute, all or nothing.)
I don’t see us expunging spiritual/religious language from any part of Article II, as that would also violate our freedom of belief, but maybe there are other words that could represent the balance better. Maybe “our religion” in the first instance and “our community” in the second instance? But in my view, regardless of our personal beliefs, we can’t get around UUism being a religion, or then we are talking about something else.
@Janet my wording included reason, science, and mathematics, as well as verifiable, not just “science,” but I agree that “empirical” also gets at a key commonality re these sources. Someone else in my congregation said they don’t necessarily associate “humanism” with science. Possibly we run into as many problems trying to group, label, and succinctly describe secular sources as religious ones—and then what about Art (or the arts)? It is both secular and religious! I am happy with it having its own section, and agree with you that I am fully committed to this being included in the revisions.
(This comment addresses responses including reference to amendment #460; see link.)