[AMENDED] Final Proposed Revision to Article II, as Completed by the Article II Study Commission in October 2023

General Assembly 2024 Article II Amendments
375

Let me get something clear if you’re willing. Are you suggesting in your first paragraph that raising children as critical thinkers holds the danger of developing mass killers? If so, are you really serious about that?

Another point. The right of conscience you speak of has always been in the context of social responsibility. That’s what “responsible” search means. That is why, I imagine, you can tell us that your conscience and beliefs have been enriched by your social connections. The A2 rewrite is adding nothing to this. If anything, with its heavy insistence on accountability, it can work in the reverse. Add to that the fact that with this rewrite leadership insists on telling UU’s what they should listen to, from whom, and how, and you have the makings of a very understandable rebellion. Further, it is because of this fact that the fifth principle has been severely undermined if not deliberately eliminated. This is not “critical thinking while developing a beloved community.” This is not JLA or Gandi or King or Jesus. That’s pure hyperbole based on a wink and a promise from leadership. They’ve not adequately been able even to articulate sufficient reason for such sweeping changes. How then are we supposed to trust them when it comes to interpreting and enforcing the bylaws as they’ve written them, particularly in the light of so many who have been abused and removed from their congregations for living into the principles as we have known them. We can’t, in my view.

376

:smiling_face_with_three_hearts: Reason #2 why Article II revision is TERRIFIC

Adding to my previous post, another reason I love the revisions to Article II is that they are so very conservative. They preserve everything I love and believe from the Unitarian Universalism of my childhood. They remind me of our sages, heroes, and martyrs. People who literally died for our faith, and those who lived for it, in service to the world.

I am reminded of this quote, from Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King’s eulogy for UU Rev. James Reeb.

Reeb and Liuzzo slide
Reeb and Liuzzo slide960×540 137 KB

For screenreaders, this image has photos of James Reeb and Viola Liuzzo, with this quote from Dr King: “…He was murdered by the irrelevancy of a church that will stand amid social evil and serve as a taillight rather than a headlight, an echo rather than a voice. He was murdered by the irresponsibility of every politician who has moved down the path of demagoguery, who has fed his constituents the stale bread of hatred and the spoiled meat of racism. He was murdered by the brutality of every sheriff and law enforcement agent who practices lawlessness in the name of the law….”
Rev. Dr. M. L. King, Eulogy for Rev. James Reeb, 1965

1 Like
377

I’m noting that the italics which emphasized the word “CORE” value are hard to see, on my screen at least. Thanks for your thoughtful question, to which I have edited my post to emphasize that “if the CORE/PRIMARY value were to question authority”… (also, it’s Dylan Roof, not Root, my typo). Of course, UU’s will always question authority and teach our children to do so, AND it’s absolutely terrific that this value is being contextualized in the ways that Ralph Waldo Emerson, James Luther Adams, and other great teachers in our tradition insisted it should be.

378

I am for updating our Article II Bylaw. I want a bylaw change that will move us all forward into the next 15 to 30 years. I hope that we have buy in from as many rank and file UUs as possible on this needed update.

I have struggled with these forums and finding zoom rooms to chat about Article II in general. I would love to be in person talking to people in the halls and rooms of a convention.

I think we must vote NO on Article if it comes to a vote this GA.

This type of decision should be done at a hybrid GA where everything is more accessible to everyone.

People can thrive in the environment that works best for them in person or online. I also think more time to get more buy in from rank in file UUs around the country is a good thing.

I hope just on the idea of a need for better accessibility and more time for buy in by the rank and file that you will vote NO.

2 Likes
379

First am I in the right spot. I want to discuss the passing of Article II in general?

Is it true that the delegates passed an amendment in the last GA and then it was basically ignored?
They rearranged some words and left the last sentence the same?

380

Is there a place right now people can chat about Article II or the call to actions?

381

Yes, you are in the right spot to discuss Article II in general. And Yes to your second question.

382

I thought there would be more discussion. Thanks for replying.

383

I think - and I’m not more an expert than many of us here - that the process would begin again in terms of the multi-year process called for in any Article II revision. A commission working on it could choose to start from scratch, i.e. from our current Article II which would remain in place, or to start from where this commission left off. That would be the choice of the commission and possibly of the GA delegates who might charge the commission one way or another.

384

I plan on speaking on the Con side for the Final Proposed Revision to Article II, but in case there are more people than time allows and I am not picked to speak at the General Session IV on this topic I choose to write hear what I plan to say. At the end I have added more concerns that time would not allow me to present if I do speak during the discussion period.

Here are some of my concerns.

I believe that the 7 Principles are a quick, digestible way to inform newcomers of the values that UUs affirm and promote, whereas these Article II revisions do not.

I belonged to one UU church where a framed version of the 7 Principles was hung on the atrium wall, where coffee hour was held, hence if a newcomer asked what UU’s believe, and many do, I could show them the 7 Principles, which always concisely answered their question.

Personally, I like how the 7 Principles expand exponentially from “person” in the 1st Principle to “all existence” in the 7th Principle, which is lost in the Revisions.

Although, the Revisions have included many of the words from the 7 Principles, the transfer of these words did not transfer the meaning of these words as applied in the 7 Principles, resulting in inferior meanings of UU values.

Specifically, many times the direct object of the noun in the 7 Principles sentence “We covenant…to affirm and promote…” are not the direct object in the UU values sentences, thus these transferred words are not the focus or meaning of the revised UU values sentence;

I used to be proud to identify as a UU. If the current 7 Principles are removed from Article II, I would no longer be proud to be a UU and would question whether UU values still align with my values.

Thank you.

(Furthermore, unlike the 7 Principles, titling the shared revised UU values, seem to cause more disputes, as evidenced by arguments about the meanings of the one-word titles during the discussions on the Amendments to the Revisions.}

(I believe this proposed revision of Article II is significantly worst than the current 7 Principles and would rather keep the 7 Principles than vote for a vastly flawed revision that amendments cannot fix.)

The GS IV is about to start so I will end it here.

2 Likes
385

I’m concerned that we are going down a dangerous road here. In theory, I support all the values (as I support the 7 Principles and 6 Sources). But yesterday I learned that Peace, the idea that “We covenant to promote a peaceful world community with liberty and human rights for all. Whenever and wherever possible we will support nonviolent means to achieve peace”…is something that can actually be weaponized to suppress conflict and silence people because some values can be weaponized while ignoring other values, like Equity and Justice. We also learned that Reason is highly problematic because affirming it sublimates other values. Instead of prizing it as something that has helped us to improve health, learn vital truths about the natural universe, and dismantle some harmful dogmas and oppressive falsehoods about e.g. race and sexuality, the primary concern is that reason can be used to deny people’s lived experience.

This makes me realize that other values can be hugely problematic. For example, Generosity might be weaponized if it is used against UUs who are of lesser means, do not have advanced degrees etc. like many members of our congregations. Not everyone can give freely of their resources and this could very well lead to people being marginalized or not fully included because they have a lesser degree of material resources, or human capital/energy because of illness or disability. I would have thought this was not a concern, because of the empathy that goes along with Love, Equity, Justice and Pluralism. But the discussion has made me realize that the dangers of some mis-applied values should be understood in the absence of context, and without the reassurance that the values are proposed in good faith and in concert with other UU values.

Similarly, we are in danger of Pluralism being weaponized to include everyone including those with harmful views and biases. And of Equity meaning that everyone including abusive and harmful people, whose beliefs may be in stark contrast to our understanding of Love and Justice, might get a voice and a vote. What if this kind equity means that they can overwhelm and essentially take over our congregations?

Ultimately I think we would be best-served to reject this whole framework and vote No, and go back to building an Article II rewrite that makes more sense.

1 Like
386

I’m coming around to agreeing with your stance here. After the last couple of days of discussion, I think the Principles and Sources are less ambiguous and less divisive. With one major exception: The 8th Principle is important and needed. I greatly value the elements of it that have been incorporated into the A2 revision. My congregation just voted overwhelmingly to adopt it. An update to the Principles at the UUA level could officially add it, or perhaps revise the 1st Principle to include language about anti-racism and multiculturalism in our conregations.

1 Like
387

I’m not seeing the voting results from yesterday after general session III (3). Can anyone tell me where they are?

1 Like
388

I have heard several people here advocate for waiting until the full By Laws Review is complete before we consider Article II changes. This indeed is a clear message of the UU the Conversation materials. I, for one, do not need to know what the By Laws Review commission will recommend - recommendations I will have opportunity to review and vote on - before I can decide whether the Article II revisions are a rich expression of our faith denomination.

1 Like
389

I am concerned with this language: “that truly welcome all persons who SHARE our values.”

Does this language say we can or should exclude people??? I think we should be welcoming to everyone and not have any exclusion clause. We do not have to all believe the same thing to search for truth with love.

I have always been proud of being a Unitarian because “We need not think alike to love alike.”

Any language than can exclude someone could be used to exclude you one day. We UUs are inclusive, loving people!!!

1 Like
390

FWIW I don’t often agree with Frank but I hard agree with this. Puzzled at how we seem to have become afraid of reason and critical thinking as if including or naming them negates every other value and sensibility.

391

Not announced yet. After they are, they will be here: Online Voting | Unitarian Universalist Association

392

If you are talking about Amendment 52 here is relevant information: [AMENDED] Final Proposed Revision to Article II, as Completed by the Article II Study Commission in October 2023 - #333 by RevJohn.
This is from the sponsor of the amendment, and it was not ignored.

393

I fiend the current UUA principals to be inspriing and concise. The played a major roll in me being coming a UU. I feel they are easy to explain to others that are less familiar with our fellowship. I find articulation efficient engaging. :slight_smile: The proposed changes are less concise, and I find them harder to share with others

i encourage you to vote against the article 2 change

2 Likes
394

A point to consider: is the focus of having love at the center deep enough of a statement? I have found that every church or fellowship believes they are be based in “love”. That is almost a given for humans. But Love can be very different for different groups and people What matters is how you express that love and the principals behind that love Our current principles provide this clarity. These show how we are different and what we are called to support.

I would like to keep the conversation going, updating our purpose as needed, in a more concise, and precise manner. I encourage for you to Vote Against the Article 2 change

And…I really really appreciate the GA engagement. Thanks for yall :slight_smile:

1 Like