Thanks for the heads-up, Sally!
Some thoughts on why I plan to oppose the changes to our Purpose, ie the article 2 change
a) it is much less concise, and I find it less useful to communicate what we stand for
b) Love being at the center is not unique to UU, rather it is common for all religions and for all life. I find it to be a bit trite.
1 Like
Don, I agree with your observations. The proposed Article II language is quite inferior to the poetry of the current language.
1 Like
In the last two weeks, my congregation had two sessions where we discussed the business of this yearâs GA including the proposed changes to the bylaws/A2, it was interesting to hear their thoughts and read their survey feedback (we wrote a survey for them to fill out so even if they didnât make it our chat-with-delegates meetings their input would be considered.) I was surprised how positive most everyone was for the changes, I thought thereâd be more questions. But no, they said they were ready for change, spoke of how they appreciated the explicitly anti-racist and inclusive and accessible language. Some folks really emphasized how this is the work they want to see us do going forward and how they loved all the action words.
Mostly what I heard from my congregation was deep gratitude for my work on A2 info back to them, and my years of participating in conversations about it. They were very excited about the A2 coloring book and mosiac A2 pages I gave out from the A2 resource page and they were looking forward to coloring them at our congregationâs booth at a local festival - that they felt the A2 revision was a lovely way to show others what we believed and who were are.
3 Likes
Thanks for your questions, Susan. The dominant culture in our society is based on white European culture. That is white culture. Rather than seeing that culture as one culture among many with one way among many of thinking and doing things, we tend to see that dominant culture as âthe normal wayâ or âthe right wayâ or in some cases we think of it as the only way. That is white supremacy culture. It is baked into our American society and, as such, is baked into our faith denomination as well. Recognizing this and working to change it is, in my belief, essential to healing the centuries-old racism we all grew up with and the current racism we continue to live with today.
I think that part of truly, fully welcoming all people who share our values to our rich faith community involves recognizing all we have in common as well as all of the rich and varied experiences we bring when we come together. I donât see our current work as emphasizing skin color, but simply as fully appreciating all that people bring to our faith - our skin color and the life experience that comes with it being just one part of what we each bring.
These questions call for long, deep, heart to heart conversations. This post in a thread pales in comparison to such a conversation, but I appreciate your question and hope this response makes some sense to you.
2 Likes
This email was received last night, just minutes after the video from UUtheConveration played for the delegates at GA last night.
A new Contact Us message has been sent from the website.
Stop being MAGA and lying and misrepresenting information. You are not being liberal but reactionary!
-Mark (lastnames) ( emailaddress )
This is a superlative illustration of whatâs wrong with the attitude of so many supporters of these changes, including that of leadership, as our previous president echoed the same slur in her departure speech. This is a clear example of what âloveâ at the center has meant so far. There is no reason to expect otherwise.
It is clear. There are many UUs who are for the proposed revisions; there are many who are concerned; and many who are unsure if this is the best direction.
The biggest concerns I have heard is in regard to the relationship change between the UUA and congregations and covenants/accountability. We had expected to see at least a draft from the bylaws renewal team by this time. In the UUA board packet (Board Packet, April 25-27, 2024 | UUA.org), we learned that the bylaws renewal team had an unexpected hiatus from July 2023 until Mar 2024. Their work is just beginning. At the Apr. UUA board meeting, it was stated that a new schedule is being created but we are probably looking at June 2026 for a vote. Their work will reveal the details of the UUA to congregation relationship and the covenant accountability.
Even if you are for the Article II proposal, please consider voting NO! If we vote NO, the next 2 years can be used to build consensus and provide us with the details for the other Articles. A similar proposal can be voted on in 2 years. Seeing the complete picture could very well alleviate concerns. Many people are uncomfortable with agreeing to accountability now, but not knowing what that means.
A 2026 vote on Article II and Article III bylaws makes sense. This is a huge change that some have only recently learned about. It takes time; It takes discussion; It takes time to internalize what it means to you.
As Meg Riley said yesterday, we need each other. Taking the time to build consensus on this change will unite rather than divide our already small denomination.
3 Likes
I apparently missed the UU the Conversation video shown yesterday at the beginning of General Session II. It seems odd to me that this was shown as part of a General Session, particularly at the beginning of the session.
Itâs my understanding that UU the Conversation is a platinum level sponsor of GA and that one of the benefits of being a platinum level sponsor is the chance to submit promotional materials (like this video) to be played before business sessions begin.
1 Like
It looked like a paid ad. The zoom chat had a lot to say about it but mostly negative and then we went onto discussions/business of GA. Someone did say something like well at least now they canât say those differing opinions werenât shared. Iâm happy to say my congregation that engaged with me seems really enthusiastic actually about the proposed A2 changes.
The final sentence in the Interdependence Value shows a complete disregard for the democratic process. I believe the Study Commission held an uncommon interpretation of the Seventh Principle and that view bled over into their understanding of Amendment 52. I believe that about 80% of UUs understand that the 7th Principle is about our interdependence with the natural world; not about our interdependence with all of humanity. 78.4% of the delegates voted to strike out the final sentence of the original Interdependence Value. That final sentence solidifies the meaning of the Value to be about human relationships. âRepair harmâ means reparations to some. Amendment 52, voted on in 2023, is still pinned at the top of âdiscussâ 2023. A minority understanding led to the current wording, approved by the sponsor and the attorney. It doesnât matter if you are for or against this understanding, the Board failed UUs when it did not act to put this to a vote at the 2024 GA using the option provided in the Bylaws (15.2)
Your statement of âIt is clearâ suggests that we are equally divided between support, concern, and uncertainty. Iâm not sure thatâs the case. Certainly there is a well-organized opposition to the Article II revisions, but tomorrowâs vote will let us know how strong the support is.
I took some time to look at some of the UU the Conversation materials. I found them to be largely speculation on what the underlying motives of the Commission on Article II were and fear mongering about what the Commission on By Laws Renewal will do, all lacking, in my opinion, any solid foundation. I see nothing in the Article II revisions that suggests a ârelationship change between the UUA and congregationsâ, though the UU the Conversation folks would have us believe otherwise. Itâs worth noting that the revised Article II still clearly states âCongregational freedom and the individualâs right of conscience are central to our Unitarian Universalist heritage.â
We are already in the middle of a multi-year process that has included many, many conversations and lots and lots of communication. I can understand people voting No because they donât want these revisions, but I donât see the value in voting No just to prolong what has already been a long and involved process.
5 Likes
Thanks for your reply. It is likely there is much more support for A-II proposal than against based on last yearâs vote for more discussion. Minority voices are important as well and need to be included, listened to and given a response, even if it isnât what they want to hear.
During 2021-22 our congregation leaders supposedly received information to participate. I talked with the president of the board at that time. They searched their electronic communications, but didnât find it. Leadership was overloaded with pandemic issues and sudden loss of a minister. We didnât have anyone involved and sharing info along the way. Discussions with members didnât start in earnest until this year. Even then some members abstained for the congregational vote.
Many see this sentence as saying freedom and right of conscience are part of our past (heritage) not our future, if this passes. That is a point that could use further clarification and discussion. âCongregational freedom and the individualâs right of conscience are central to our Unitarian Universalist heritage.â
A way to eliminate speculation and fear of the unknown is to share the Article III changes. That might eliminate concerns and unite us.
I do understand those who have been involved for years and attended discussions think there has been enough. I believe I heard the commission say over 10,000 people. That is a lot. However, it leaves many 1000s who werenât and view the change as significant as well as being sudden (from their perspective).
Good example of something needing more discussion.
Connie, I applaud you for raising the work of the Bylaws Revision team.
There is a larger problem with the Bylaws Revision Team regarding its scholarship on Congregational Polity.
The April Board packet had a report entitled 2024 April Board Retreat Big Questions. This report revealed a critical misunderstanding of the history of Congregational Polity.
The explanation is too complicated for this forum. I wrote this team indicating their retelling of a 1960s controversy over the inclusion of a statement in the Associationâs membership requirement saying, âwithout regard to race, color or national originâ was not, at the team affirmed, âThe first significant place where absolute congregational autonomy was questioned.â
The resolution that affirmed an expansive membership policy (final language, âwithout regard to race, color, sex, or national originâ) was achieved by balancing the inherent tension between Congregational Polity and centralized control.
In my letter to the Bylaws Team, I noted, âYou are attempting serious work that should be supported by serious scholarship.â
I agree we should vote NO on the current Article II and await the results of the Bylaws Revision team. Voting now to accept Article II changes is premature.
1 Like
I regret that the person writing was not more respectful in expressing their frustration. I disagree with your characterization of this one example as a âsuperlative illustrationâ of whatâs wrong with the attitude of âso manyâ supporters of these changes. And of leadership. I just rewatched Susan Frederick-Grayâs farewell address and heard no echoed slur of any kind. To say this is an example, representative of what love at the center has meant so far is, I believe, simply not true. One instance or even a handful does not make a representative example.
1 Like
Thanks - I didnât realize it was run as an ad. I must have joined zoom after it had played. I watched it this morning from the link posted in this discussion.
Thank you. I appears I joined after it was played but explains some of the chat comments that I saw. The comments scrolled so quickly that it was difficult to figure out context of some them!
1 Like
Yeah, it ended just as Session II was starting. I understood it was an ad and I still found it disconcerting. If your were just listening or not paying attention closely it felt like it was part of the Session, even though I realize that was not anyoneâs intention.
Frank, UU the Conversation forwarded this MAGA comment to the UUA President and CCâd the Moderators requesting that a public statement be made that respect should be extended to UUs at General Assembly, on social media, and other communication platforms.
1 Like