I, too, am disturbed that they’ve removed the original wording of the first Principle. To me, it always meant not only that everyone has the right “to flourish with inherent worth and dignity,” but that everyone is born with the spark of the Divine – born a “blessing” versus with “original sin.” The new wording isn’t nearly as strong.
3 Likes
I like this revision, but it falls short of affirming the inherent worth and dignity of each person (worth and dignity seems to be modifying how they flourish not the attributes of the person). Could we start by reclaiming the first principle which establishes the right to flourish? For example,
“We affirm (celebrate?, something stronger?) the inherent worth and dignity of each person, which establishes their right to flourish.”
This may not be quite right either, but I hope it makes my intent clear.
3 Likes
And I see what you are saying here and agree… the whole thing about flourishing… Well, it is rather in line with " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
My intent was to make the minimal change possible that would ditch this ‘worthiness’ encumbrance. But your point is well taken about the rest of the sentence. My problem right now is that I MUST be at grading student papers… hope to return to this after. Thank you!
inherent worth seems preferable to me
Here’s another version I just submitted:
“We honor the inherent worth and dignity of each person and affirm that all have the the right to flourish in lives of meaning and significance.”
That should come out as its own suggestion/amendment. The purpose is to REFOCUS on ‘inherent worth and dignity’ and to explicate what the heck this ‘flourish’ means…
2 Likes
And thank you Bek, for your work here and elsewhere !!
1 Like
Agreeing here with Bek’s point about reverting to “worth” rather than “worthiness” (what may seem clear to the Article II Study Commission may more likely seem simply cumbersome to most readers).
I would also question another aspect of the revised version: declaring that “that every person has the right” to anything seems a bit odd considering that rights discourse usually corresponds to states or legal institutions that have the power to affirm, defend, or impose those rights. And, when they don’t, they end up as hollow lip service. So it sounds like a technical term outside of its natural habitat, so to speak.
The original version “We affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person” seems fine in its basic formulation and doesn’t seem to require fixing (except, perhaps, for a more inclusive circle of compassion… such as “inherent worth and dignity of all life” to include animals, plants, and habitats as well).
2 Likes
I do think that the word “worth” is less objectionable if it is used in the phrase “inherent worth”. Used in this way, it implies an equality of worth for all.
How will we use these phrases to guide our lives?
As we think about our lives, we can say, “Did I recognize and respect the inherent worth and dignity of all persons?”
Or we could say, “did I recognize and respect the worthiness of all persons”?
I think the former is clearer and reflects the intent better.
@AnthonyFiscella I think your point is VERY well taken that the whole “has the right” to anything is legalistic – a technical term outside of its natural habitat. Will you be attending the business meetings of the GA? I believe the business meetings alone may be free, but I could be very wrong.
I think my attempt was to change the minimal possible, so as to emphasize “inherent worth and dignity”… Nonetheless, i greatly agree with you.
@BekWheeler Thank you! I didn’t know that the business meetings might not cost anything. However, I remain unvaccinated and therefore try to limit my physical presence in UU circles where others may have concerns (and I don’t do Zoom/Skype). So I will probably not attend as tempting as it feels and even if I have the “right” to do so!
Here’s another possibility that is responsive to suggestions to include peace, and follows the three sentence format of the other value statements.
Equity: We affirm that every person has inherent worth and dignity. We covenant to use our resources to build and sustain fully accessible and inclusive congregations and communities. We work to create a just and peaceful world where all people can flourish.
5 Likes
@9284 Janet! Beautiful! You are quite quite right to track the 3-sentence format of the other value statements. Just so. That had not struck me. Yes.
2 Likes
I think “inherent worth” makes sense.
Thank you both for your work on this! This version addresses my concerns with the way this value had been articulated, and I appreciate how it fits the form of the other value and covenant statements.
1 Like
@rholmgren
@9284
I am eager to see how the May workshops go. There CLEARLY will be one on fashioning the ‘inherent worth and dignity’ statement. Fascinated to see how they build/structure/facilitate the discussions.
I guess all these comments will remain accessible during the May workshops? Fascinating.
Bek Wheeler (from the Virginia Peninsula)
1 Like
Thank you! Not having seen yours, I just submitted a suggestion to change worthiness to worth and the order of the words back to inherent worth and dignity!
1 Like
Folks, question: This amendment I put out returns the wording “inherent worth and dignity,” but it leaves the focus and frame of the original Revision. What if we return the sentence focus to inherent worth and dignity
Proposal: “We affirm the inherent worth and dignity of each person. We covenant to use our time, wisdom, attention, and money to build and sustain fully accessible and inclusive communities. We work to build a world where all flourish in lives of meaning and significance.”
This would put “honor the inherent worth and dignity” front and center, and not behind and subsumed to flourishing…
Thoughts? This is a blend with 9284 Janet Bush (#86 | Bek Wheeler | Return to "inherent worth and dignity" - #32 by 9284)
1 Like
How much is your time worth? You can put that in dollars. How much is your car worth? You can put that in dollars. But does your time or your car have worthiness? If a sibling raises their hand and says “I don’t want to be given a worth because my ancestors were judged on a dollar value”, and instead are accepting of referring to their worthiness, isn’t it appropriate to hear that and learn from it? It feels awkward because it’s new. The old way is supremacist to the oppressed. Let people sit with the awkwardness and we can all learn from it. Let it prompt discussions with non-UUs about what we mean by it. Eventually it might become the words we don’t want to change later.
2 Likes
Nobody is talking about “giving a worth,” or a “worth being given.” You are talking about “financial worth” which is assessed, given, taken, etc.
I am talking about “INHERENT worth and dignity.” Of the spark of divinity sort. That is completely different. Nobody is assessing, giving, taking anything. Inherent goodness, inherent spark, of the Universalist sort. The divine goodness within all – inherently.
1 Like