Yes, platinum-level sponsors are given space for what are, in effect, paid ads. This has been true at previous GAs as well.
Iâve given a lot of thought to folks who were not felt included in the A2 discussions and wrote about it here Final Proposed Revision to Article II, as Completed by the Article II Study Commission in October 2023 - #265 by LeilaniDavenberry
As one of the people who has been discussing it for years, yes it definitely feels like plenty of discussion has happened and itâs had thousands of input.
I created a GA playlist of videos (already published, public and free) here that include some on A2 - most of them about A2 are at least a year old. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHfQFlFhwK1HInXGl65vzhhEAIBvlr6u0&si=8Nti4HxLuVhM8-Gw
Iâd like to see it pass and I imagine should it pass, thereâll be lots of discussion and many more resources on discussing it with our congregations.
2 Likes
Hi Rebecca,
I proposed Amendment 52, which was voted on favorably by the 2023 General Assembly, and led to the revision of the Interdependence value. I wrote Amendment 52 in collaboration with the UU Animal Ministry board, in consultation 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 Interdependence value and covenant statement.
Unfortunately, in my perspective, your comments (which I have responded to elsewhere) continue to mischaracterize the content of the revised Interdependence value, and the appropriateness of the process through which those changes were made.
To be clear, although the words in the final proposed Interdependence Value are not the sole result of Amendment 52, both the UU Animal Ministry board and I enthusiastically support the final proposed Interdependence value, and as far as I know, so do the other groups who were involved in drafting Amendment 52.
You claim that the final proposed Interdependence value disregards the democratic process. I think instead you unfortunately continue to misunderstand the nature of last yearâs GA 2023 vote. It was to endorse amendments and refer them to the democratically elected UUA Boardâs appointed Article II Study Commission. The Commission was charged to consider the amendments referred by the 2023 GA as they developed their final proposal. It was clear from the beginning that the Commissionâs final proposal might or might not exactly reflect the wording of amendments as adopted by the 2023 GA.
The Commissionâs job was not to produce a final proposal that reflexively mimicked what anyone else, including GA, wanted them to do, or else we would have had no need of a Commission for that role. We would have needed only a scribe. The Commissionâs job has never been to do exactly what any particular leader, congregant, congregation, professional association, identity group, philosophical or theological group, advocacy group, conference (looking at you, GA 2023), UUA staff member, UUA board officer, UU seminary, UU issue group, or other UU organization that they received voting results or other feedback from to do. Their job has been to do 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.
I donât know what the Commissionâs discussions were as they struggled with how best to incorporate Amendment 52. I know that I apprised them that a version of Amendment 52 that DID include âwork to repair harm and damaged relationships,â as well as âcare and respect,â had more a enthusiastic and less divided response on discuss.uua.org than the version that lacked those terms. I also informed them that I did not find those phrases to conflict with the intentions of those who developed Amendment 52. People who are interested can read more about that here.
For folks who consider it undemocratic for a GA-elected Boardâs appointed Commission to figure out how best to incorporate a variety of perspectives, including but not limited to perspectives conveyed by a GA vote, I would remind you that the final, decisive, binding vote on the final proposed language is not the Boardâs, or the Commissionâs, it is the 2024 GAâs. The commissionâs Final Proposed Revision is just that: a proposal.
Further, the Final Proposed Revision was deliberately released in October 2023 to provide those who might take any issue with its words or its process of development to organize and submit to the 2024 GA an amendment to correct 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) needed by February 2023 to bring the amendment before the 2024 GA. Other amendments did garner sufficient congregational support to merit consideration at the 2024 GA.
As far as I know, the final proposed value statement including âwe work to repair harm and damaged relationshipsâ has been raised as a serious concern only by those who oppose the Article II revisions as a whole.
Rebecca, you wrote, âThat final sentence solidifies the meaning of the Value to be about human relationships.â The UU Animal Ministry and I obviously are in favor of repairing harm and damaged relationships among human beings; our passion for the final proposed Interdependence value has also to do with its applicability to the more-than-human world, which is explicit in the Valueâs references to not only âreverence for the the great web of lifeâ and âwe honor the interdependent web of all existence,â but also âwe covenant to protect Earth and all beings from exploitation.â This is the context for the final sentence, âWe will work to repair harm and damaged relationships.â The final proposed Interdependence value is the culmination of many years of work by UU Animal Ministry supporters and others who care deeply about the planet, its people, and other animals. There is unfortunately plenty of harm and damage to repair in our relationship with Earth and ALL beings, human and otherwise.
To sum up, the final proposed Interdependence value statement, which is not going to be modified by any amendment properly brought before the Assembly at this point, is something that the GA delegates, UUA Board and Commission, and congregations can choose to be very proud of â as an expression of where our faith is and where it is going, and as an example of our democratic principles in action.
John
Rev. John Gibb Millspaugh
Executive Director
UU Animal Ministry
8 Likes
Dispute changes on Whova that UU the Conversation is âstirring up trouble because they have the need to sell fear, confusion, and hatred of the UUAâ all the UU the Conversation materials were reviewed and approved by UU leadership.
It is heartbreaking that there are attacks not on the content of advertising materials but on the character of fellow UUs. Love at the center?
2 Likes
I appreciate your very thorough explanation and agree.
1 Like
While I have a number of issues with the Art. II proposal, I want to focus on four words that would be added to section 2.4 entitled âInclusionâ
The section on âInclusion,â which is numbered 2.3 in existing art. II, reads, in relevant part: âWe strive to be an association of congregations that truly welcome all persons . . .â
Under the proposed revised art. II, the same portion of the foregoing sentence would read: "We strive to be an association of congregations that truly welcome all persons who share our values. . . . "
The proposal would thus add the limiting language, âwho share our values.â We would no longer strive to truly welcome all persons. We would strive to truly welcome only those persons âwho share our values.â If the sentence intended to welcome all people, and not just those who share our values, the words âwho share our valuesâ would not have been added.
There are three reasons I oppose adding the phrase, âwho share our values.â
First, this phrase is internally inconsistent with the concept of love, and inconsistent with our stated practice of radical hospitality. Love is non-judgmental. Yet, by ceasing to welcome people who do not share our values, we are not loving these people. Rather, we are judging them â judging them as unacceptable of being truly welcomed into our faith. I believe that as UUs, we must strive to welcome all people â as art. 2.3 says we do now â not just those who share our values.
Welcoming only people who share our values is also inconsistent with our concept of radical hospitality. We have said we practice radical hospitality. Yet, we cannot engage in radical hospitality at the same time we donât welcome people who do not share our values. If adopted, the new art. II would be the end of radical hospitality.
Second, one feature of Unitarian Universalism that distinguishes it from other faiths is that it is non-creedal. We do not have a set of beliefs to which we must all ascribe to be UUs. If we are going to welcome only those people who share our values, then we are establishing a creed â a requirement that people share the values identified in art. 2âto be a UU. That is not the Unitarian Universalism faith in which I have lived my life. I do not want to be part of a creedal faith and, I would venture to suggest, many, if not most, delegates, do not want to be part of such a faith.
Third, as a UU, I am engaged in a free and responsible search for truth and meaning. On my search, I want to hear from and be challenged by people who disagree with me; I donât want to attend church only to people who share my values. I want to be pushed out of my comfort zone by people who think differently than I do to advance my thinking. By welcoming only people who share our values, we will end up navel gazing. I donât want to navel gaze. I want to have hard conversations about incredibly-difficult-to-answer questions with people who may have values different from mine. We say we value diversity. One type of diversity I value is viewpoint diversity. We will be a less diverse faith if we welcome only people who share our values.
I want to welcome people to Unitarian Universalism who share our values; and I want to welcome people who do not share our values. In other words, I want to strive to truly welcome all people, as section 2.3 presently provides.
Last year, UUA leadership encouraged delegates to vote âyesâ to keep the conversation going, and delegates did so. This year, to keep the conversation going, I encourage delegates to vote âno.â We must vote up or down on the entire proposal. If we vote âno,â we can revisit and revise the proposal in coming years.
3 Likes
Try reading the transcript.
âWe are at an important moment in our history, as Unitarian Universalists and as a country and the stakes are very high. And unfortunately, in times of change and uncertainty, there is always a risk that fear and anxiety will dominate and lead us to cling more tightly to what has been, to a status quo that has never served the cause of human need, nor the values of justice and equity. Even more dangerous during times of significant change, some people begin to cling to some fabricated imagination of a mythical past. We see this among white nationalists in our country.â
I was really pleased to find Robâs youtube playlist on A2 https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLtkOwBLOyB7CNV-H_5LacO7_Rd8T7UZ78&si=nhx_4MBbfglXHX5k I added several of these to my playlist - all free public previously published videos. I think I want to plan an A2 values art session <3
1 Like
More conversation is needed to build consensus. A no vote means we can vote on something similar in 2 years. At that time we will have the whole picture including A-III changes from the bylaws renewal team.
1 Like
Eric, thank you for this informative piece!
Thank you for this eloquent presentation that fits with my understanding of the flaws of this proposal. More conversation would be helpful, especially as we also look to review the rest of our by-laws.
Sadly, I donât think that is true. I think the multiple years work, thousands of input in this A2 revision gets tabled as follows:
âFinal approval of the Article II proposal requires a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the 2024 General Assembly to adopted the revision as the new Article II of the UUA bylaws. If 2024 General Assembly votes fails, the process ends and a similar proposal cannot be considered for two years.â (Iâll update when I get a better answer.)
I just found the same information, but read it differently:
If the Article II proposal does not receive the requisite approval at the General Assembly following the completion of the study process described in subsection (c)(3)(iv) or subsection (c)(4), above, neither the proposal nor another proposal that is substantively similar shall be placed on the agenda of the next regular General Assembly.
So, discussion can continue, refinements can happen, and in 2026 we could have broader consensus.
1 Like
I would love to get clarity on that, because I was glad to see Thomas Beanâs (Tom1, above) comment encouraging a No vote to allow for more discussion. I would hope that this could be further reformed and edited, with the current Article II remaining as we work on the rest of the bylaws. That would mean leaving discuss.uua.org open for folks to do that work in community.
1 Like
I got the opposite impression from the Blue Boat conversation. That a no vote would mean a reconsideration in two years, but not necessarily starting from scratch.
I really donât know whatâs true.
The answer is being worked on and hopefully weâll get a clear answer soon. Iâll ask that it get explained by moderators as well. Clearly it needs to be explained again. I deleted by my back and forth as it was unnecessary. Iâll update this when I get an answer. Thanks for your patience and understanding.
1 Like
My understanding is that the UUA leadership reviewed and approved the main UU the Conversation ad after some revisions. The UU the Conversation web site contains that unedited content as well as a lot of other content - all part of UU the Conversationâs message and definitely not reviewed and approved by UUA leadership. While I wouldnât try to characterize why UU the Conversation does what it does, I have reviewed some of the materials and have found them to encourage fear of what UU the Conversation predicts is going to happen, rather than arguments on a more solid foundation. And while they may not encourage hatred of the UUA, there is a clear anti-UUA sentiment in the materials. So there seems to me to be some truth in the original posters comments.
All the revisions they insisted on were intended to make UUtheConversation conform to a rule the UUA made up. They told us that vendors with booths are not allowed to take and advocate a position on any business before the GA. We looked at the terms and conditions and that rule is not there. But they insisted that we remove all references to voting no on the A2 re-write, and that even while the UUA board itself took a public position, thus putting their heavy finger on the scales. As I understand it, thatâs not supposed to happen either. One last remark. UUtheConversation does what it does because we have grown to love UUism, the one we were encouraged to love by practically all previous boards for many decades. Current leadership has yet to provide any compelling reasons to so radically change the core of our faith, including and especially the falsehood that our faith is âswimming in white supremacy.â
1 Like
Reason Number One why Article II is TERRIFIC:
Consider the question, âWhy should I bother bringing my kids to church?â and then look at a graph of UU congregational membership from 1961 to 2020, (data are from UUA website)⌠there is no dramatic drop in the number of adult members over time, but a concerning drop in RE enrollment, over the past 20 years. For congregational sustainability, we need to consider why families might want to bring their kids to a UU congregation, not just why âweâ older adults might want to be there.
Many parents want their kids to be critical thinkers, and indeed, our curricula such as Neighboring Faiths, OWL, Coming of Age, etc. directly teach âthe free and responsible search for truth and meaningâ⌠But if our PRIMARY/CENTRAL CORE value were to teach kids to question authority, whatâs to stop us from raising a cadre of little Dylan Roofs (the young man who murdered the Bible Study participants who had welcomed him into their church)? Thatâs an example of James Luther Adams âfissiparous individualismâ taken to its horrible extreme.
We need kids and families to want to be here. We need kids, and adults, who grow up to be caring and responsible humans, as well as free thinking ones. The âright of conscienceâ isnât going away, but itâs being framed in a proper context â the same context where UU thinkers like Ralph Waldo Emerson, James Luther Adams, Howard Matson, put it â squarely in an interdependent web of social responsibility.
My conscience and beliefs, like yours, did not emerge in a vacuum, but were shaped over the years by my life experience, education, elders, ancestors, culture, technology, ecosystem. And, even now, I believe that my own free thinking is enriched and informed, made more fair and objective, more complex and expansive, by resonating in community.
In my view, the âFifth Principleâ is alive and well within the spirit and the letter of our revised Article II â indeed, it is there stronger than ever, because it recognizes what our UU Founding Father John Adams (and Founding Mother Abigail Adams) held dear: the principle that we donât put any individuals, including ourselves, up on pedestals and hand them all the power. The principle that none of us is free, unless we all are. And therefore that I cannot exercise my right of conscience, unless I take responsibility for your right to do the same.
This fierce and unrelenting love of the whole of us is why it makes sense to bring your kids to church. They could stay home and learn to question authority, to think whatever they want, and that could look like Erasmus or like Dylan Roof⌠But questioning authority while creating beloved community aspires to look like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, King, Jesus. Which is why we have (and need more) Love at the center.
By the way, a cute mnemonic, JET-PIG, is captured in this kidsâ song, which may reassure anyone worried kids canât learn and remember the 7 values: Justice, Equity, Transformation, Pluralism, Interdependence, Generosity, with Love at the center⌠https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRQ1sF95uSQ
2 Likes
I donât think the bylaws state we need to start from scratch and it is not indicated by the AII comm. timeline. The parliamentarian could answer.
Here are excerpts:
From AII commission timeline.
Article II Study and Amendment Process | UUA.org
Final approval of the Article II proposal requires a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the 2024 General Assembly to adopted the revision as the new Article II of the UUA bylaws. If either 2023 or 2024 General Assembly votes fails, the process ends and a similar proposal cannot be considered for two years.
From UUA bylaws: uua_bylaws_05222023.pdf
*(5) If the Article II proposal does not receive the requisite 1722 *
*approval at the General Assembly following the 1723 *
*completion of the study process described in subsection 1724 *
*(c)(3)(iv) or subsection (c)(4), above, neither the proposal 1725 *
*nor another proposal that is substantively similar shall be 1726 *
*placed on the agenda of the next regular General 1727 *
Assembly.