We were told that a yes vote last year was not to approve the statement, but for another year of discussion. Then this site was shut until February.
1 Like
Article II is important for a few reasons, in particular that it defines the purpose of the Unitarian Universalist Association. The change to the principles and sources, if passed, will affect UU curricula and services, at the very least.
1 Like
Absolutely
this is ESPECIALLY true if the UUA is going to pillar-ize âEquityâ as if it were some free-standing value.
If we go by a more classic definition/strategy of âequityâ as in effect âediting mistakes (with compassion)â
then the whoever is appointed authority (democratic or otherwise) of this process should be be expected to make objective scientific Motivations, Metrics, and Moderation (by disinterested 3rd parties) of policies in the pursuit of Justice.
For power that does not answer to People or Principles can not remain jusic.
I am ABSOLUTELY for Accountability.
I am discouraged by both the (explicit) rhetoric and (implied) values between the âpetalâ of âJUSTICEâ⌠and the âpetalâ of âEQUITYâ
In short, âEquityâ should not be its own petal. Itâs not a value; only one option among many strategies for Justice. âEquityâ could be mentioned under some (more value-based, less agenda-based) language of Justice, but only if considered as complementary to âEqualityâ (which remains fully absent from this A2 language).
The new language for A2 agrees with this distinctionâŚ
Line 41 uses the terms âevery person has the right to flourish,â but (by the historical distinction above) thatâs not âEquity,â thatâs âEquality.â
Line 43 uses the phrase â'using our time/attention/money to buildâŚ"
IS more accurately the rhetoric and sentiment of âEquityâ
The A2s revisionist language not only omits this important distinction of âEqualityâ in language, but also retracts its philosophical heritage of ârespecting nature enough to let it take itâs course,â which weakens the distinction and meaning of its own language on Pluralism and Freedom of Belief elsewhere.
as I see it, right to flourish is equality; the basis for the further statement of how that happens, which is equity
Yes, I think you see the problem.
Put simply, Equality and Equity are two products, sold separately,âŚand as strategies to create/practice/preserve Justice, Equality and Equity can be reciprocal, if not mutually exclusive.
âŚand while it may paint me pedantic;
I feel referring to both strategies/values of Equity and Equality only under the name of one is not just linguistically incorrect, it feels culturally irresponsible.
âEquityâ may be the buzz word of the moment, but that shouldnât diminish our philosophical frame-of-reference or tool-kit.
Just a quick side note, artist-to-artist: while your speculation sounds logical, the data disproves that thought. The color(s) that results in greater conversions (as in, sales) are red and orange. Not green. This has been consistent at least since when I was creating visual sales letters, back in the early 2010s.
Also, the image is not the basis of the values. It is just one way to communicate them.
1 Like
I am not sure how to respond to this? A part of me whatâs to skip the conversation about Article II and instead ask what medium do you work in and have you been to any good art exhibits recently? And then the other part is saying, to just continue with the Article II conversation. This is debatable. A company like Red Lobster or JC Penney is heading towards bankruptcy, it can be said, these companies are taking on deficits and are therefore in the red. Whereas a profitable company like Costco is in the Black. These are financial terms. A lot of people who go to church, go there on Sunday, when Money is addressed. In my church, asking for Pledges to help with paying for the building, or good causes is a Sunday ritual .
Though I do appreciate your thoughts about Red and Orange driving sales, it probably made the differences in me giving my money to Wendyâs and McDonalds, but, not as much McDonalds. Wendyâs definitely. They know how to use colors well.
ââŚwhat medium do you work in and have you been to any good art exhibits recently?â
Iâm a digital artist primarily. (And I do some branding/marketing design work)
âThis is debatable. A company like Red Lobster or JC Penney is heading towards bankruptcy, it can be said, these companies are taking on deficits and are therefore in the red.Whereas a profitable company like Costco is in the Black. These are financial terms.â
Linguistics and what folks respond to in the sense of what youâre talking about (color used to influence decision making) arenât always in step.
âA lot of people who go to church, go there on Sunday, when Money is addressed. In my church, asking for Pledges to help with paying for the building, or good causes is a Sunday ritualâ
Unfortunately, making a financial ask is necessary whenever there is shared resources such as a church.
âThough I do appreciate your thoughts about Red and Orange driving sales, it probably made the differences in me giving my money to Wendyâs and McDonalds, but, not as much McDonalds. Wendyâs definitely. They know how to use colors well.â
The psychology of color in that context is a little different than screen/print (what weâre talking about here). But definitely interesting to look into.
It should not be the leadership role to promote the issue. In fact it should be the opposite. They should not promote one side or the other.
The UUA has clearly taken sides. In its statements and actions surrounding the Assembly it has clearly aligned itself with the proponents. This is wrong.
All posts and discussions on this, and all issues before the Assembly, should be between the proponents and the opponents. The UUA itself should not be taking sides. In the Article II amendments UUA alignment with one side is extremely bad for UUA. It means that if it passes because UUA pushed it, UUA automatically loses some respect and weakens its connection with the losing congregations.
In the worst case the losing congregations could choose to dissociate and form a separate association. This is not as impossible as some might see. It has happened to many denominations and the struggle In United Methodist is the current example.
UUA should be impartial and prepared to accept the wishes of the congregation majority and avoid alienating a significant segment of its membership.
3 Likes
John, you make a good point about UU leadership putting âits finger on the scaleâ with its open support for the proposed Article II language.
Everyday UUs formed UU the Conversation to provide some balance to the discussion. We also became a Platinum Level Sponsor of this General Assembly to communicate our message. We urge a No vote on Article II.
As part of this Platinum Level Sponsorship, a three-minute video produced by UU the Conversation, will be shown at the start of General Assembly. Visit our website to watch this Three Minute GA Video.
The video celebrates our liberal faith and urges careful thought before voting for changes that will alter the character of UU liberalism
Delegates tend to vote with UU leadership. The vote on Article II is too important just to follow along.
4 Likes
I believe that if it passes and a group wishes to remain seven principles, we would join it.
At this point even if it doesnât pass my congregation will not likely ever become a âfair shareâ member again.
UUA is inviting schism.
2 Likes
A lot of feelings have been expressed here. My congregation talked about it last year and again this year. A few people liked Article II the way it is and didnât see any good reason to change it, but we didnât spend much time debating over it. In the end, we asked ourselves if these changes have any impact on our lives. The vast majority of us shrugged our shoulders and agreed it wonât change what the average Sunday looks like in our Fellowship. It wonât change how we greet each other, our affirmation, or how we sing (badly). It wonât change when we have our potlucks, our discussion groups, or our game nights. It wonât change the good work we do in the surrounding community. Most importantly, it wonât change what we believe in as individuals. Weâll still be our unique selves, and weâll still be all of us. A lot of hard work and careful thought went into this revision, and I think itâs pretty cool. Our congregation voted in favor of approving it even though some of us would rather keep it the same, which may seem apathetic, but we have our reasons. Our Fellowship is planted in the middle of a staunchly conservative Texas city, and we donât have the luxury of being very picky about which positive messages we approve of or who we call our allies. At the local level, weâre fighting back against relentless efforts to strip entire demographics of their basic reproductive rights, voting rights, or even just the right to exist. Iâm not saying the decisions and debates about the Article II revision are not important, because they are. Iâm just saying we trust yâall to sort it out. Keep being awesome, everyone. Much love, from Amarillo.
5 Likes
I am a delegate from the First Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Ann Arbor. The text below is my intervention at a debate we held last November, where I argued against the revision of Article II.
I am Patricio Herbst. I speak to you as an individual with many identities, including being a Latino immigrant who has never felt like he owns the place here. And also as the loving father of a lesbian daughter, who is a captain in the US Army Medical Corps but who was at one time a month away from becoming undocumented because of the carelessness of our lawyer.
I think it is important for me to say this because some of the arguments used to promote the revision of Article II describe these as requested by minoritized groups.
Though I am a cisgender male, I position myself as one of those minoritized persons and I do not want minoritized groups to be the scapegoat of Unitarian Universalismâs falling out from liberalism. Because this is what is at stake: Whether we will still be a liberal religion.
I take liberalism in its classical definition to affirm and promote the right of individuals to search for truth and meaning.
In liberalism, no truth is held as sufficiently sacred to be unquestionable.
Rather, we affirm each otherâs procedural right to question all forms of received wisdom and we affirm the role of reason as the basis upon which we see each other as equals as well as different human beings.
Such affirmation of the rules upon which we come to be together as individuals and recognize each otherâs dignity is more important than the content of any position that each of us can take, including any belief, creed, goal, or value.
Philosophical liberalism is the basis upon which we can become politically liberal or conservative, we can advocate for small government or for a welfare state, for legal immigration or for open borders, and take any political action within the law.
Philosophical liberalism is also the basis upon which we can accept each other wherever we are in the search for truth and meaningâ-including whether we are still, individually, under the spell of religious dogmas, traditional beliefs, or social norms.
I became a unitarian after having been raised in a fundamentalist religion, within which my understanding of gender, sex, and sexual orientation was, letâs say, coarse.
The notion that ours is a welcoming congregation required me to see individuals with different gender identities in terms of our common humanity, regardless of whether I understood their identity as a chosen behavior, a medical condition, or a natural state of being.
It also gave me the time and the context to grow my understanding of such identities. Overtime, this paid off handsomely, as my daughter was able to come out as queer to parents that never stopped loving and supporting her.
I wish the same liberal environment, the same procedural discipline can continue to welcome individuals who are open minded enough to see very different people as having a common humanity even if they donât believe, understand, or live alike.
The seven principles guarantee that. And my sense is that the changes in purposes plus the substitution of explicit principles by unclear and ambiguous values taken as dogma will undermine that.
The change in purposes seeks to transform the UUA away from providing services to congregations to being an activist organization. The new primary purposes include âto foster lifelong faith formation and spiritual development, to heal historic injustices, and to advance UU values in the world.â
Despite the fact that I individually agree that history is replete with injustice and that the world could use more UU liberals, the notion that the organization will take collective action and use its resources to promote a particular interpretation of faith, spiritual development, or justice in the world outside our congregations is frightening.
It presages the privileging of centralized definitions of faith and justice over devolving to congregations and individual members the autonomy we need to construct our own faith and our own sense of justice.
Whereas a pillar of liberalism is its reliance on the rule of law, the purpose of healing historical injustices suggests that we will be ruled by something more stringent and at the same time more diffuse than the law and that we will, as a denomination, sponsor action in the world that goes beyond what the law requires or permits.
In the context of these purposes, the values themselves, while benign, become problematic because they are vague and we are asked not to hold them individually but to act collectively to uphold them. If a centralized sense of faith and justice becomes part of our purposes, what prevents centralized interpretations of equity, pluralism, generosity, transformation, interdependence, and love from being imposed on us? What prevents the UUA from starting to rule some actions as required and some as prohibited based on their centralized interpretations of what it means to live by those values?
Again, the problem definitely does not lie on the values themselvesâthese values are among those that can thrive in their multiple interpretations within a liberal religion.
The problem lies in the vagueness of these values lying next to a centralized authority that seeks to define and disseminate their meanings, acting collectively on our behalf.
In the context of a centralized authority that can define what these values mean, it is even more dangerous to accept what section C.2.4 says about inclusion: âWe strive to be an association of congregations that truly welcome all persons who share our values.â
Keeping our faith liberal would make us welcome everybody who subscribes to our principles. Our principles do not commit us to a particular reading of history or to a particular way of choosing the injustices of history we need to mitigate. The principles donât compel us to do anything that we individually donât want to do. We need to keep it that way as that is a key reason why we left other religions to become Unitarians.
We live in a world divided by ideologies; Unitarian-Universalist congregations can be places where we all listen to each other, even and especially if we disagree.
For years, the Western world has taken for granted the liberal consensus; but it is under threat today by those who see liberal democracies as too slow and ineffective to bring about what those ideologues think is just or right.
Rather than changing our liberal faith into an activist faith which is committed to one way of righting injustice, rejecting the revision of Article II can keep our liberal faith ready to be the big tent in which dialogue across difference continues to exist and where individuals can band together to pursue specific actions that they deem important.
The principles define the love or the bonds that keep us together: The affirmation of our mutual, individual right to pursue our own truths and regardless of what we hold as true to have our dignity affirmed. We are liberal and need to continue to be liberal.
4 Likes
Hi! As one of the people who has consistently tried to amend the Interdependence value statements that the UUA Article II Study Commission (Commission) has proposed to revise Article II over recent years, Iâd like to speak to the charges that the final proposed Interdependence value statement is inappropriate for reasons related to the process through which it was developed, specifically the way it relates to the 2023 GAâs proposed âAmendment 52.â
I am the original author of Amendment 52, which GA 2023 voted on favorably with 78% support. Amendment 52 was drafted not just by me but also the Board of the UU Animal Ministry in conversation with staff of the UU Ministry for Earth, religious professionals, and the three groups of delegates who were most engaged throughout Spring 2023 in the national conversations about amending the value statement as proposed by the Commission at that time.
With the support of all of those groups, I submitted Amendment 52 to discuss.uua.org along with a rationale explaining the intent behind the proposed revisions. Comments quickly flowed in, some supportive, some not. I read every comment, more than once, and did my best to discern which ones seemed to be proposals that were compatible with the language I had submitted, whether or not I agreed with them.
On June 16, 2023, I publicly stated, in the discuss.uua.org discussion of Article 52, that if I considered delegatesâ comments responding to the language I had proposed along with the many other perspectives that Iâd considered to get it to that point, I would keep âmutualityâ and âjusticeâ that I had proposed, but instead of deleting âcare and respectâ might include all four terms. Based on those earlier conversations, I strongly preferred âmutualityâ and âjusticeâ to âcareâ and ârespect,â but I had not considered the including all four rather simply deleting the latter. After I submitted Amendment 52 to discuss.uua.org, GA 2023 delegates who engaged this conversation helped me see that âcare and respectâ was compatible with the intended meaning of Amendment 52âs âmutualityâ and âjustice,â and were words very important to them to retain.
Another such change, I wrote in the same comment on discuss.uua.org, would be to restore the words âwe work to repair harm and damaged relationships.â Although including this phrase didnât seem necessary to me personally, it was clear from post-submission conversations some delegates considered this a critically important phrase that resonated strongly. Since it was compatible with the intended meaning of the amendment as I had submitted it, I wrote on discuss.uua.org that I would be comfortable with the Commission restoring the phrase.
So it was that on June 16, 2023, a full week before the first full day of GA, I posted to discuss.uua.org an updated version of Amendment 52, incorporating delegatesâ comments, and including âcare and respectâ and âwork to restore harm and damaged relationships.â Did I, personally, prefer that updated version of the amendment? Not particularly, no.
But I did find that it retained the intended meaning of the amendment I had submitted, while including phrasing that was clearly important to delegates taking the time to deeply engage the issue in the final days leading up to GA. After I posted it, the positive response was overwhelmingâa far more positive, and far less divided, set of responses than the one I had first posted had received. But Amendment 52 as submitted, according to the democratically agreed rules, was the only version of that amendment that delegates would be provided the chance to express their opinion on in general session.
I was overjoyed when Amendment 52 was voted on favorably with close to 80% of the vote.
I also felt that I had a responsibility to inform the Commission of the fact that a version of the amendment incorporating more perspectives gained much more enthusiastic responses on discuss.uua.org, and much less of a divided response, than the version I had submitted previously. I thought that they would appreciate this data point as they mulled over what their final proposed version would be.
So on July 10, 2023, I emailed the Article II Study Commission and let them know that the inclusion of these two phrases was important to some delegates who had engaged at discuss.uua.org and at the conference itself, and noted my opinion that these additions were compatible with the intended meaning of Amendment 52 as proposed.
(My study of the Article II submission process had informed me that delegates who proposed successful amendments were free to touch base with the Article II Study Commission after GA to relate to the Commission on the amendmentâs intended meaning and any other considerations they deemed relevant as the Commission made whatever changes they deemed elegant or otherwise important for the Final Proposed Revision to Article II. But I also knew that the data point I provided would be just one among a great many they were free to consider).
Did the language proposed by the Commission in their Final Proposed Revision to the UUA Board exactly mirror the updated amendment that I had posted to discuss.uua.org on July 16? No. Do I, personally, prefer the Commissionâs final version? Not particularly. And thatâs as it should be. The Commissionâs job is not to do exactly what you or I or anyone else wants them to do, or else we would have no need of a Commission. Their job is not to do what any particular what any particular leader, congregant, congregation, professional association, identity group, philosophical or theological group, advocacy group, conference (looking at you, GA 2023), UUA staff, UUA board officer, UU seminary, UU issue group, or other UU organization wants them to do. It is to give their best to take all of those perspectives seriously and into account, as well as much more, review Article II, and propose any way to revise it that in their best judgment will best enable the UUA, member congregations, and covenanted communities to be powerful forces for spiritual and moral growth, healing, and justice. And I believe that this is exactly what they have done.
For folks who consider this action undemocratic, I would invite you to consider that General Assembly itself elects the UUA Board of Trustees that appoints the Article II Study Commission. This is a commonplace structure in a democracy.
Further, the final vote is not the Boardâs, or the Commissionâs, it is the GAâs.
Further still, the Final Proposed Revision was deliberately released in October 2023 to provide those who might take sufficient issue with its by its words or its process of development to organize and submit to the 2024 GA an amendment revising, replacing, restructuring, adding to, subtracting from, or deleting it. But as far as I know, no one even attempted to amend the final proposed Interdependence value. If someone did, they clearly did not garner the support of 15 congregations (out of more than 1,000 congregations) that they would have needed to enlist by February 2023 for the amendment to be brought before the 2024 GA. Other amendments did garner sufficient congregational support to merit consideration at the 2024 GA.
As someone deeply involved in many national conversations among divergent groups about the Interdependence value statement and Amendment 52, leading up to and including General Assembly 2023, and as someone who does not personally particularly prefer the final proposed version before the 2024 GA to versions that I personally have submitted for consideration, for several reasons I would love to bend your ear about(!), I nonetheless feel that the final proposed Interdependence value statement is something that the GA delegates, UUA Board and Commission, and congregations can choose to be very proud ofânot only as an expression of where our faith is and where it is going, but also as example of our democratic principles in action.
5 Likes
Hi Rebecca, I will try to clarify from my perspective, though Iâm quite aware that I donât know the full story.
As one of the people who has consistently tried to amend the Interdependence value statements that the UUA Article II Study Commission (Commission) has proposed to revise Article II over recent years, Iâd like to speak to the charges that the final proposed Interdependence value statement is inappropriate for reasons related to the process through which it was developed, specifically the way it relates to the 2023 GAâs proposed âAmendment 52.â
I am the original author of Amendment 52, which GA 2023 voted on favorably with 78% support. Amendment 52 was drafted not just by me but also the Board of the UU Animal Ministry in conversation with staff of the UU Ministry for Earth, religious professionals, and the three groups of delegates who were most engaged throughout Spring 2023 in the national conversations about amending the value statement as proposed by the Commission at that time.
With the support of all of those groups, I submitted Amendment 52 to discuss.uua.org along with a rationale explaining the intent behind the proposed revisions. Comments quickly flowed in, some supportive, some not. I read every comment, more than once, and did my best to discern which ones seemed to be proposals that were compatible with the language I had submitted, whether or not I agreed with them.
On June 16, 2023, I publicly stated, in the discuss.uua.org discussion of Article 52, that if I considered delegatesâ comments responding to the language I had proposed along with the many other perspectives that Iâd considered to get it to that point, I would keep âmutualityâ and âjusticeâ that I had proposed, but instead of deleting âcare and respectâ might include all four terms. Based on those earlier conversations, I strongly preferred âmutualityâ and âjusticeâ to âcareâ and ârespect,â but I had not considered the including all four rather simply deleting the latter. After I submitted Amendment 52 to discuss.uua.org, GA 2023 delegates who engaged this conversation helped me see that âcare and respectâ was compatible with the intended meaning of Amendment 52âs âmutualityâ and âjustice,â and were words very important to them to retain.
Another such change, I wrote in the same comment on discuss.uua.org, would be to restore the words âwe work to repair harm and damaged relationships.â Although including this phrase didnât seem necessary to me personally, it was clear from post-submission conversations some delegates considered this a critically important phrase that resonated strongly. Since it was compatible with the intended meaning of the amendment as I had submitted it, I wrote on discuss.uua.org that I would be comfortable with the Commission restoring the phrase.
So it was that on June 16, 2023, a full week before the first full day of GA, I posted to discuss.uua.org an updated version of Amendment 52, incorporating delegatesâ comments, and including âcare and respectâ and âwork to restore harm and damaged relationships.â Did I, personally, prefer that updated version of the amendment? Not particularly, no.
But I did find that it retained the intended meaning of the amendment I had submitted, while including phrasing that was clearly important to delegates taking the time to deeply engage the issue in the final days leading up to GA. After I posted it, the positive response was overwhelmingâa far more positive, and far less divided, set of responses than the one I had first posted had received. But Amendment 52 as submitted, according to the democratically agreed rules, was the only version of that amendment that delegates would be provided the chance to express their opinion on in general session.
I was overjoyed when Amendment 52 was voted on favorably with close to 80% of the vote.
I also felt that I had a responsibility to inform the Commission of the fact that a version of the amendment incorporating more perspectives gained much more enthusiastic responses on discuss.uua.org, and much less of a divided response, than the version I had submitted previously. I thought that they would appreciate this data point as they mulled over what their final proposed version would be.
So on July 10, 2023, I emailed the Article II Study Commission and let them know that the inclusion of these two phrases was important to some delegates who had engaged at discuss.uua.org and at the conference itself, and noted my opinion that these additions were compatible with the intended meaning of Amendment 52 as proposed.
(My study of the Article II submission process had informed me that delegates who proposed successful amendments were free to touch base with the Article II Study Commission after GA to relate to the Commission on the amendmentâs intended meaning and any other considerations they deemed relevant as the Commission made whatever changes they deemed elegant or otherwise important for the Final Proposed Revision to Article II. But I also knew that the data point I provided would be just one among a great many they were free to consider).
Did the language proposed by the Commission in their Final Proposed Revision to the UUA Board exactly mirror the updated amendment that I had posted to discuss.uua.org on July 16? No. Do I, personally, prefer the Commissionâs final version? Not particularly. And thatâs as it should be. The Commissionâs job is not to do exactly what you or I or anyone else wants them to do, or else we would have no need of a Commission. Their job is not to do what any particular what any particular leader, congregant, congregation, professional association, identity group, philosophical or theological group, advocacy group, conference (looking at you, GA 2023), UUA staff, UUA board officer, UU seminary, UU issue group, or other UU organization wants them to do. It is to give their best to take all of those perspectives seriously and into account, as well as much more, review Article II, and propose any way to revise it that in their best judgment will best enable the UUA, member congregations, and covenanted communities to be powerful forces for spiritual and moral growth, healing, and justice. And I believe that this is exactly what they have done.
For folks who consider this action undemocratic, I would invite you to consider that General Assembly itself elects the UUA Board of Trustees that appoints the Article II Study Commission. This is a commonplace structure in a democracy.
Further, the final vote is not the Boardâs, or the Commissionâs, it is the GAâs.
Further still, the Final Proposed Revision was deliberately released in October 2023 to provide those who might take sufficient issue with its by its words or its process of development to organize and submit to the 2024 GA an amendment revising, replacing, restructuring, adding to, subtracting from, or deleting it. But as far as I know, no one even attempted to amend the final proposed Interdependence value. If someone did, they clearly did not garner the support of 15 congregations (out of more than 1,000 congregations) that they would have needed to enlist by February 2023 for the amendment to be brought before the 2024 GA. Other amendments did garner sufficient congregational support to merit consideration at the 2024 GA.
As someone deeply involved in many national conversations among divergent groups about the Interdependence value statement and Amendment 52, leading up to and including General Assembly 2023, and as someone who does not personally particularly prefer the final proposed version before the 2024 GA to versions that I personally have submitted for consideration, for several reasons I would love to bend your ear about(!), I nonetheless feel that the final proposed Interdependence value statement is something that the GA delegates, UUA Board and Commission, and congregations can choose to be very proud ofânot only as an expression of where our faith is and where it is going, but also as example of our democratic principles in action.
2 Likes
Jay, I can speak to Amendment 52 not being the same language as the Final Proposed interdependence value statement from my own perspective. I know I donât have the full picture, but hereâs some of what Iâm aware happened. You should know that Iâm one of the people who has consistently tried to amend the Interdependence value statements that the UUA Article II Study Commission (Commission) has proposed to revise Article II over recent years.
I am the original author of Amendment 52, which GA 2023 voted on favorably with 78% support. Amendment 52 was drafted not just by me but also the Board of the UU Animal Ministry in conversation with staff of the UU Ministry for Earth, religious professionals, and the three groups of delegates who were most engaged throughout Spring 2023 in the national conversations about amending the value statement as proposed by the Commission at that time.
With the support of all of those groups, I submitted Amendment 52 to discuss.uua.org along with a rationale explaining the intent behind the proposed revisions. Comments quickly flowed in, some supportive, some not. I read every comment, more than once, and did my best to discern which ones seemed to be proposals that were compatible with the language I had submitted, whether or not I agreed with them.
On June 16, 2023, I publicly stated, in the discuss.uua.org discussion of Article 52, that if I considered delegatesâ comments responding to the language I had proposed along with the many other perspectives that Iâd considered to get it to that point, I would keep âmutualityâ and âjusticeâ that I had proposed, but instead of deleting âcare and respectâ might include all four terms. Based on those earlier conversations, I strongly preferred âmutualityâ and âjusticeâ to âcareâ and ârespect,â but I had not considered the including all four rather simply deleting the latter. After I submitted Amendment 52 to discuss.uua.org, GA 2023 delegates who engaged this conversation helped me see that âcare and respectâ was compatible with the intended meaning of Amendment 52âs âmutualityâ and âjustice,â and were words very important to them to retain.
Another such change, I wrote in the same comment on discuss.uua.org, would be to restore the words âwe work to repair harm and damaged relationships.â Although including this phrase didnât seem necessary to me personally, it was clear from post-submission conversations some delegates considered this a critically important phrase that resonated strongly. Since it was compatible with the intended meaning of the amendment as I had submitted it, I wrote on discuss.uua.org that I would be comfortable with the Commission restoring the phrase.
So it was that on June 16, 2023, a full week before the first full day of GA, I posted to discuss.uua.org an updated version of Amendment 52, incorporating delegatesâ comments, and including âcare and respectâ and âwork to restore harm and damaged relationships.â Did I, personally, prefer that updated version of the amendment? Not particularly, no.
But I did find that it retained the intended meaning of the amendment I had submitted, while including phrasing that was clearly important to delegates taking the time to deeply engage the issue in the final days leading up to GA. After I posted it, the positive response was overwhelmingâa far more positive, and far less divided, set of responses than the one I had first posted had received. But Amendment 52 as submitted, according to the democratically agreed rules, was the only version of that amendment that delegates would be provided the chance to express their opinion on in general session.
I was overjoyed when Amendment 52 was voted on favorably with close to 80% of the vote.
I also felt that I had a responsibility to inform the Commission of the fact that a version of the amendment incorporating more perspectives gained much more enthusiastic responses on discuss.uua.org, and much less of a divided response, than the version I had submitted previously. I thought that they would appreciate this data point as they mulled over what their final proposed version would be.
So on July 10, 2023, I emailed the Article II Study Commission and let them know that the inclusion of these two phrases was important to some delegates who had engaged at discuss.uua.org and at the conference itself, and noted my opinion that these additions were compatible with the intended meaning of Amendment 52 as proposed.
(My study of the Article II submission process had informed me that delegates who proposed successful amendments were free to touch base with the Article II Study Commission after GA to relate to the Commission on the amendmentâs intended meaning and any other considerations they deemed relevant as the Commission made whatever changes they deemed elegant or otherwise important for the Final Proposed Revision to Article II. But I also knew that the data point I provided would be just one among a great many they were free to consider).
Did the language proposed by the Commission in their Final Proposed Revision to the UUA Board exactly mirror the updated amendment that I had posted to discuss.uua.org on July 16? No. Do I, personally, prefer the Commissionâs final version? Not particularly. And thatâs as it should be. The Commissionâs job is not to do exactly what you or I or anyone else wants them to do, or else we would have no need of a Commission. Their job is not to do what any particular what any particular leader, congregant, congregation, professional association, identity group, philosophical or theological group, advocacy group, conference (looking at you, GA 2023), UUA staff, UUA board officer, UU seminary, UU issue group, or other UU organization wants them to do. It is to give their best to take all of those perspectives seriously and into account, as well as much more, review Article II, and propose any way to revise it that in their best judgment will best enable the UUA, member congregations, and covenanted communities to be powerful forces for spiritual and moral growth, healing, and justice. And I believe that this is exactly what they have done.
For folks who consider this action undemocratic, I would invite you to consider that General Assembly itself elects the UUA Board of Trustees that appoints the Article II Study Commission. This is a commonplace structure in a democracy.
Further, the final vote is not the Boardâs, or the Commissionâs, it is the GAâs.
Further still, the Final Proposed Revision was deliberately released in October 2023 to provide those who might take sufficient issue with its by its words or its process of development to organize and submit to the 2024 GA an amendment revising, replacing, restructuring, adding to, subtracting from, or deleting it. But as far as I know, no one even attempted to amend the final proposed Interdependence value. If someone did, they clearly did not garner the support of 15 congregations (out of more than 1,000 congregations) that they would have needed to enlist by February 2023 for the amendment to be brought before the 2024 GA. Other amendments did garner sufficient congregational support to merit consideration at the 2024 GA.
As someone deeply involved in many national conversations among divergent groups about the Interdependence value statement and Amendment 52, leading up to and including General Assembly 2023, and as someone who does not personally particularly prefer the final proposed version before the 2024 GA to versions that I personally have submitted for consideration, for several reasons I would love to bend your ear about(!), I nonetheless feel that the final proposed Interdependence value statement is something that the GA delegates, UUA Board and Commission, and congregations can choose to be very proud ofânot only as an expression of where our faith is and where it is going, but also as example of our democratic principles in action.
3 Likes
I am not opposed to re-stating who we are and examining values, etc. However, I wonder if this re-write is a good replacement.
I suppose youâve seen my posts on Whova and discuss.
I do think there was confusion among the delegates about which version of Amendment 52 they were voting on.
I discovered the âadditionâ of these words in January and asked Charles Du Mond why they were there. It was also asked at the January Board Open House. Charles and the other Board members seemed surprised. A few days later Charles responded that the A2SC had made the change. The Board had the authority to propose an amendment to remove any confusion, but they declined. Iâm very disappointed in their lack of action. By that time it was too late to try for an Amendment via 15 congregations.
I realized in March that the words ârepair harm and damaged relationshipsâ can be read as a covenant to pay reparations and remediation costs for the environmental damage caused by companies in our investment portfolio. When I realized that, it made me even more uncomfortable, as that issue, in the form of a business resolution, resulted in a significant uproar at GA 2023. Yet it quietly slipped under the radar in Amendment 52.
A couple of days ago Rob Spirko insisted that everyone understood that the 7th Principle was not about the environment, it was about interpersonal relationships. How very sad.
The whole process has been a disaster.
The following link is from the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Jacksonville. It reveals the process and resources used in their deliberations regarding the A2 rewrite. It also reflects the kind of program, thorough and painstakingly inclusive, particularly in view of the magnitude of these changes, we should be able to expect of UU leadership. In my view, it is what congregations should be doing, engaging one another in the context of the principles that the UUA seeks to bury, obscure, or ditch altogether.