#86 | Bek Wheeler | Return to "inherent worth and dignity"

2023 Article II Amendment Idea Submissions Amendment Ideas
1

Submission 86
Bek Wheeler
Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of the Peninsula (Newport News, VA) 8114

What is your suggestion or idea?

Current: Equity. We declare that every person has the right to flourish with inherent dignity and worthiness. We covenant to use our time, wisdom, attention, and money to build and sustain fully accessible and inclusive communities.

Amendment idea: return the concept wording to “inherent worth and dignity…” yielding " We declare that every person has the right to flourish with inherent worth and dignity. We covenant to use our time, wisdom, attention, and money to build and sustain fully accessible and inclusive communities.

What is the reason for your amendment idea?

“Inherent dignity and worthiness” is awkward, clumsy and distracting, all of which detract from the power of the message.

Thus, the word ‘worth’ is a noun. That has 5 letters. The proposed revision adds not one but two suffixes (‘-y’ and ‘ness’) – Worth +y = Adjective: ‘worthy.’ Then we add another suffix “”-ness"" to take it BACK to a noun ('worthiness).

Noun → adjective → Noun.

Gee, we had a noun to start with - ““worth.””

There are 5 letters to worth, and 5 letters to the suffixes changing the noun to an adjective and then back to a noun. Talk about circuitous verbiage that adds zero meaning.

Yes, I have heard the rationale that human beings used to be assigned a monetary worth as slaves. But we UUs have two generations – nearly 40 years – of recognizing “The inherent worth and dignity of every person” as our sacred first principle. Thus, ‘inherent worth and dignity’ with honorable interpretation is deeply established in UU congregations.

Note that ‘worth’ dealing with monetary value has quite different phrasing, and hence is not confused with “inherent worth and dignity of each person.” Thus, one might ask “what is that car worth,” where ‘worth’ clearly evokes monetary value. Very different phrasing. Or “That’s not worth my time,” again a phrasing and meaning quite different from our well established “inherent worth and dignity.”

For all these reasons, I urge the UUA to return this portion of the Equity value to “inherent worth and dignity…”

Signed, Bek Wheeler, President, Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of the Peninsula (Newport News, VA)

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

I’ve talked with many in online groups and in my own congregation. All agree with returning to the phrasing ““the inherent worth and dignity…””

18 Likes
2

Use of the awkward phrase “worthiness” suggests to the reader that this section was written by people who prioritize their own particular takes on things over the experience of everyday people who are going to read this text. It suggests that they think they know better than we do, which leads them to choose wording that everyday UUs would never use. Do the people who put this text together really understand things better than the people who are going to read it?

5 Likes
3

I disliked “worthiness” also and agree with this proposed change. Thanks Bek!

4 Likes
4

Cindy, I anticipate this will be the amendment I, as delegate, will submit in June. However, SO many people have made this particular comment. I wonder how we consolidate so as not to waste delegate submissions. Like we don’t want 20 people making this same amendment in June… hmmm

3 Likes
5

I think that’s the logic behind those May gatherings that the UUA Board is holding! That will be designed to bring people with similar ideas together, is my understanding.

2 Likes
6

“Inherent worth” is something everyone is born with, hence the adjective “inherent”. It concerns me mightily that the Article II Study Commission’s FAQ would construe that phrase with money as they said in “We’re dealing with a past in which monetary worth was assigned to human beings”.

5 Likes
7

Please note that the commission, in their FAQ, provides this rationale for the use of “worthiness.” (See Frequently Asked Questions: Article II Study and Revisions)

Why worthiness?

We’re dealing with a past in which monetary worth was assigned to human beings. “Worthiness” is more explicit that we are talking about the quality of being worthy. Definition “quality of being good enough.” We are all good enough as we are. Worth can be monetized. People were and still are being monetized. That definition of worth is not the original intention; for people who have a history of their people being monetized. Worthiness can never be monetized. We are all worthy of love, respect, dignity, kindness, compassion, and care.

1 Like
8

Yes, I have previously read about this rationale and find it not persuasive. We have 40 years of “inherent worth and dignity,” that CLEARLY have nothing to do with monetization or $$. See my comments above.

5 Likes
9

You don’t have to wait for a Board workshop to get together and combine ideas. The Board will do what it can to help via the workshops, and people are also encouraged to self-select and create a combined amendment on their own.

2 Likes
10

I have read the rationale for worthiness. However, I find it cumbersome compared to worth. To me, worth is to worthiness as truth is to truthiness. The more succinct the better.

5 Likes
11

They will never get the chance to make the same amendment, because the Board has the final say in the apparently relatively few that will actually make it through to vote, and they will not prioritize redundant amendments. Still, we need efficiency for this final part of the amendment process to go well, and I believe the May workshops are intended to help consolidate amendments together and direct redundant ones to one delegate. Also, to the extent the Board can comment here with feedback such as one instance you already mentioned in the Blue Boat Passengers group advising participants to get together and consolidate their amendments, that may also make the three days in May less of a bottleneck. I hope that every congregation that has members who have submitted amendments makes sure to send as many delegates to as many May workshops as possible. Unfortunately, with timing limitations, proposers of amendments and/or the delegates from their congregations might not be available for the particular workshop they are invited to attend, so there may still be a lot of messiness in this process. However, it also has all the chaotic yet purposeful fun of the communal creative process!

2 Likes
12

Note to people interested in working together to help the combining, winnowing down process: There’s a public and open group on Facebook, Blue Boat Passengers (adminned by myself and Don Manning Miller) focused solely on Article II and other GA issues. People are welcome to use this group as a forum to discuss and combine amendment suggestions. There are already posts referencing each section of the proposed Article II revisions (we just used the main sections, not subdivided as here). Civility rules are similar to the rules here. Because the group is open and public, people off Facebook can also see the content, though not comment.

1 Like
13

@LaurieJ I like your analogy: “worth is to worthiness as truth is to truthiness.” thank you.

7 Likes
14

Charles, will the UUA be providing models of what it wants amendments (submitted June 1-5) to look like? Thus, for example, with my idea (affirmed by SO MANY here and beyond), would the amendment read?

We move, in the Equity value, to strike “dignity and worthiness.” Insert instead, “worth and dignity,” yielding a first sentence to read: “We declare that every person has the right to flourish with inherent worth and dignity.”

Pardon if this is an obvious question. 2023 is my first GA

15

I said exactly the same thing in a chat a while back–I think it might have been an Article II feedback session.

16

@KLusignan do you mean you offered exactly the same phrasing/approach to that amendment (to return to ‘inherent worth and dignity’?)

17

No, I mean I compared worth:worthiness to truth: truthiness. :slight_smile:

3 Likes
18

absolutely agreed
this alone might be a reason for down-voting the entire thing; a symptom of how badly assembled it was in at least some points

1 Like
19

There is usually a document with line numbers and an amendment form where one can cite line number and give the exact revision

20

We move, in the Equity value, to strike “dignity and worthiness.” Insert instead, “worth and dignity,” yielding a first sentence to read: “We declare that every person has the right to flourish with inherent worth and dignity.”

Yes, this sufficient. As was noted in another comment, we will eventually have documents with line numbers so people can reference the location in the document with the line numbers.

3 Likes