Correct me if I’m misreading, Robert, but you seem to be suggesting that the principles and sources are dated, and that is why you are enthused about the new A2. If that is so, then please tell us all how the principles and sources are no longer relevant to who we are. What, for instance is dated and obsolete about the first principle, or the 4rth, or the 5th? Thanks if advance for your considered reply.
1 Like
I am not against rewriting and revising the principles and do not fear change. However, I’ve never understood, much less have had explained to me what are the problems with, such statements as:
“The worth and dignity of every person”
“A free and responsible search for truth and meaning”
“Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations”
Those sound like damn good principles to me.
You don’t change things just to change things, and sometimes “old” can mean “timeless.”
However, my main issue is that the whole process has been bad: censorious, coercive, manipulative and deceptive. Good longtime UUs who have dared express dissent or questioned the undemocratic process have been falsely smeared, attacked and shamed (called “racists,” “alt-right,” “people of bad faith”), and even driven out of the church. I would have much more confidence in the changes if they were created and made in an open, bottom-up and democratic process.
UU is a church where changes are decided by members and not conceived of and imposed top-down by a Vatican. Many UUs reject their childhood churches, such as Catholicism, where the Pope gave papal bulls and decreees and laity are conceived of as “the flock.”
It appears to me that leadership behind the scenes in Boston conceived of what is to be the new orthodoxy, and worked to unilaterally get in implemented whatever way they can. It appears to me that their working philosophy is “the ends justify the means.” Irrelevant to the worthiness or lack thereof of the new bylaws rewrite, that is not how things are supposed to be done in UU.
My belief is that the whole bylaws rewrite should be restarted and done in a way worthy of a liberal, laity-centric church that values democratic processes.
Along with my previous post on logical fallacies, I wish all UUs would read the below post. It shocks and appauls me when ordained UU ministers and UUA leaders demonize and falsely smear UUs simply for expressing different viewpoints on a topic. UU isn’t supposed to be an “us versus them” church, and such ad hominem attacks, including when it happens within congregations, were a key reason why numerous members of my congregation, including my late mother, left the church.
1 Like
Love this article [see live link in Franks comment] “in progress,” Frank! I encourage everyone to check it out, in the interest of “learn[ing] from one another in our free and responsible search for truth and meaning.” 
You know there’s something very telling in your reply.
You blame UUA supporters. Not Article 2 supporters. It shows that the intent behind some of, but not all of, the opposition to Article 2 isn’t rooted in anything actually about Article 2. It’s rooted in opposition to the UUA, and using Article 2 as its current vehicle for that opposition.
But I’m not terribly surprised.
-GA 2022 it was petition candidates for the Board. They lost 90-10.
-GA 2023 it was petition candidate for nom com. They lost 70-30.
-GA2024 it is Article 2.
Tim, you posit that those who do not support the passage of Article II are doing so as a proxy to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with UUA leadership. UU leadership and the proposed Article II language have sufficient shortcomings in their own right to incur the wrath of many liberal UUs.
I was a petition candidate for the UUA Board of Trustees in 2021 because I care deeply for UUism. I ran by petition to force an election for a board position. Due to a quirk in the UUA bylaws (Article IX, Section 9.10, subsection (a), “if only one person has been validly nominated for an elective position at large, the persons so nominated shall be declared elected.” Those running by petition seek only to bring much-needed election reform at the national level.
The proposed Article II language is simply bad policy. The proposed language fails to articulate a coherent definition of UUism. Many believe removing an affirmation of “individual freedom of belief” simply unmoors the Association from a key characteristic of liberal faith.
Much reform is needed at many levels. A rejection of Article II is a first step.
1 Like
“Religious liberalism emphasizes individual autonomy, critical thinking, and the exploration of diverse perspectives in matters of belief and practice. The fourth principle, “a free and responsible search for truth and meaning,” gives voice to the liberty for UUs to pursue individual critical thinking and exploration.”
I thought perhaps Alex’s appreciation of the article I linked to in response to a question from @Uutimatkins is sufficient reason to make it available to others on this site. He failed to reply, but we can at least make it available to those genuinely interested in the subject of Liberal Religion and how to keep it.
1 Like
There is some confusion about what the UUA means by accountability, so I am posting this from the 2023 Widening the Circle of Concern Implementation Plan The 2024 report has not yet been released. https://www.uua.org/files/2023-08/2023_wcc_implementation_plan.pdf
Page 27
Accountability Launch Group
Accountability Launch Team – The UUA Board is preparing with key UU identity groups and stakeholders to launch an ongoing, iterative accountability group to help ensure the UUA follows through in its long-term AR/AO/MC commitments. The UUA is creating a group to monitor the impact of the implementation of the COIC report, and provide real-time feedback and discernment with the UUA’s leaders for key decisions based on our shared commitment to anti-oppression and full inclusion. The Board of Trustees has appointed a four-person accountability launch team to begin this work, Starting Summer/Fall 2023*. Implementation* [The Accountability Launch Group did start their work in 2023.]
Page 29
Streamline and Rethink UUA Governance Structures
Renewing UUA ByLaws - The Board of Trustees is undertaking a renewal, rewriting and re-imagining of UUA bylaws for theologically ground and mission focused governance. The intention is to create opportunity for innovation and creativity
and broader democratic engagement by reducing complexity of structures, providing greater role clarity, and accountability to our values, including through covenant. The 2022 GA passed a Business Resolution affirming this work, and the creation of a Bylaws Renewal team. The Bylaws Renewal Team, which was created in September 2022, is hopeful to have a draft of renewed bylaws for the 2025 or 2026 General Assembly. In Development
1 Like
Well Tim, it was leadership who brought this controversy to UUism. It is leadership who has failed utterly to provide a decent rationale for their proposed changes. It is leadership who refuses to answer perfectly legitimate questions from those who disagree with what they are doing. So yes, they are to be “blamed.” But it’s not so much blame that’s at issue here as “accountability.” You know, the word they tend to lean on the most? The word that arguably encapsulates what they’re trying to do here. They’re big on holding their opposition “accountable” but are not at all inclined to accept it. That is what is “telling.”
1 Like
Hi Jay.
Just a note to clarify: I only posit that some of the opposition to Article 2 is rooted in opposition to the UUA. Unfortunately the voices who are actually against Article 2 are being drowned out by generalized anger at the UUA over actions from 8 years ago.
I do wonder - if the goal is indeed reforming how we do elections, and I have genuinely no other reason to suspect what you’re saying isn’t true - why not do a bylaw amendment to require it from the NomCom?
Uh you linked to an article with no author? That’s kinda suspect.
And the general assembly has had oodles of chances to hold the nebulous “leadership” accountable.
Like GA 2023 Nom Com election.
Like GA 2022 Board Election.
Like GA 2021 Board election.
Precisely how many times does GA need to give the same message to leadership for it to be heard?
It seems you want UUA leadership to ignore all the recent contested elections in favor of your viewpoint. That is the literal opposite of “democratic process.”
Are you talking about my link? not Frank’s? The is a UUA publication from their task force. No the author is not named.
Is the criticism of the Article 2 rewrite or the UUA? It doesn’t have to be an either/or.
Process, and such things as fairness in process, are important aspects to me. Even if a corrupt political process produces a good leader, the process is still wrong and must not be accepted. In my view, the ends don’t justify the means. The danger of corrupt or otherwise bad political processes, especially if they become normalized, is that they may produce a bad leader, perhaps a corrupt dictator, in the future. Not accepting an unfair and corrupt process, even when it gives you the result you wanted this time, is being proactive. It is also being ethical.
In a church premised on spirituality, growth, morality, and ethics, it can be argued that the process (some might call it the journey) is the most important thing.
1 Like
I gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming your best intentions and posted that unpublished article in answer to what I thought was an honest question about liberal religion. I won’t make that mistake again.
1 Like
Hi Rebecca,
I was referring to Frank’s link but see how the format here can lead to unsure replies. I appreciate you asking for clarification 
I notice how you didn’t seem to reply to any of this.
I’ll repost it for your benefit.
“And the general assembly has had oodles of chances to hold the nebulous “leadership” accountable.
Like GA 2023 Nom Com election.
Like GA 2022 Board Election.
Like GA 2021 Board election.
Precisely how many times does GA need to give the same message to leadership for it to be heard?
It seems you want UUA leadership to ignore all the recent contested elections in favor of your viewpoint. That is the literal opposite of “democratic process.””
Also - I’m sorry that I question who the author might be of an annonomyus pre-publication article. How dare me. I was taught in school to question who anonymous sources are on the internet before using the article as a source.
You make a bold claim the process is “corrupt.” Please provide some supporting, verifiable evidence for this. Let’s get into the realm of facts over rhetoric.
Read my plethora of links, references, citations, and essays in my previous posts, and you will find much information. It has already been commented on by others in this forum that the UUA provides only one-sided information on the bylaws rewrite to laity and congregations, which, in my opinion, is anti-democratic. Some would call it propaganda, and others would call it ‘putting one’s thumb on the scale.’ I also earlier posted the essay by UU minister Rev. Denise Tracy giving her observations of what she saw as manipulation, coercion and bullying at the 2023 General Assembly.
For this particular post, I will repost two essays by UU Ministers:
‘How The UUA Manufactures Consent’ - by Rev. Gary Kowalski
‘Standing on the Side of Power’ by Rev. Munro Sickafoose
Below is the UUA Board’s commissioned 2009 Fifth Principle Task Report that in part said that GA “is dramatically broken,” “The future of our UU movement can ill-afford to continue the ways of faux democracy and unaccountable representation that have characterized Associational governance, including the content and process of General Assembly,” “GA is not really democratic in that delegates are neither representative of their congregations, other than being members, nor are they accountable to them,” and “It is questionable how well the delegate body represents and is accountable to member congregations.”
At my congregation, the GA delegates are unelected and can vote whatever way they personally choose. That is both undemocratic and non-representational, and, as the Fifth Principle Task report says, not uncommon at many congregations.
1 Like
i appreciate this wording. I think it has more humility and grace, and embraces the differences in our congregations.
1 Like
None of this is verifiable proof of corrupt behavior. You are claiming corruption without offering proof of what you say.
In fact, pulling in a quote from someone above who appears to support your “arguments”
“ …you’re the victim of one of the techniques often used by many supporters of the UUA. They’ll respond to questions they cannot answer by saying it’s already been given elsewhere and you missed out or weren’t paying attention. It’s your burden to search for something I can say with some confidence is likely not even there.”
So where’s your again, verifiable evidence that article 2 has been a corrupt process.
Not just a process you didn’t like. Specifically “corrupt.”