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

General Assembly 2024 Article II Amendments
21

I would like to invite DRUUMM members to note there is a GA discussion channel to discuss all things about this GA including A2 and amendments in our DRUUMM Slack space. The DRUUMM Slack space, just like the Facebook Gathering Place, is a benefit of DRUUMM membership. I have not found the Facebook discussion A2 groups to work for me and the DRUUMM Slack is an alternative for DRUUMM members that is working better for me (as well as posting here.)

1 Like
22

“What is Love (to this UU)?” and “What is Love to YOU?”

I hope my answers will inspire you to think about YOUR answers in your “free and responsible search for truth and meaning.”

There are many answers to this question, but below are 3 of my answers – the 1st focusing on the Values of the Proposed Revision, the 2nd focusing on my profession as a psychodynamic psychotherapist, and the 3rd focusing on the Wheeler and Stebbins Equity Amendments.

“What is Love (to this UU)?”

  • Noticing and listening to the interdependent web of all existence and responding in Love.
  • Realizing, understanding, and respecting that we are all sacred beings with differences and commonalities, and responding in Love.
  • Accepting that we must respond with growth in order to both adapt to the changing world and to transform the world with liberating Love.
  • Part of that response is to dismantle racism and other systemic oppressions and use more inclusive democratic processes.
  • Part of that response is to more generously share our faith, presence and resources.
  • Part of that response is to listen, understand, respect and respond to the interdependent web and to one another – in ways that prevent and address inequities and help us build and sustain accessible and inclusive communities – communities where systemic oppression cannot gain another foothold, and where every person can thrive.

“What is Love (to this UU)?”

  • When a baby cries, we listen and try to figure out what they need. We don’t ignore them. We respond to their need as we understand it.
  • When an older child cries, we listen and try to figure out what they need. We don’t ignore them. But if they cry for candy - or later car keys - we don’t automatically give them what they cry for. We wisely pay attention to what they need in order to flourish, and we respond appropriately.
  • When a person who feels marginalized “cries”, we listen and try to figure out how and why they feel marginalized. We don’t ignore them. We find out what they need, and we respond appropriately in ways that prevent or address inequities.
  • When I feel marginalized, I cry out as articulately as I know how to. I don’t ignore how I feel or what I think. I work for, ask for, and sometimes fight for what I think is needed.
  • When a person cries out in anger and uses hateful speech, we don’t have to listen long to understand that they are expressing anger and hate. We try to respect the person underneath that anger and hate – but we respect ourselves by doing what we need to protect ourselves. We respect both them and ourselves by using our attention and wisdom to respond in ways that build and sustain accessible and inclusive communities - where all can thrive.

What is Love (to this UU)?

  • I love Bek Wheeler’s Amendment of the Equity Values: “We declare that every person is inherently worthy and has the right to flourish with dignity, love, and compassion.” It’s like the 1st and 2nd Principles all rolled up into one Value: Inherent worthiness and dignity plus Compassion in human relations!
  • Then how can we express this Equity Value as a Covenant statement? How do we promise each other to support every person’s right to flourish?
  • I believe support happens at multiple levels – at the level of the individual, the community and the association of congregations.
  • Support happens at an individual level, with compassion in human relations. It happens with understanding what each person needs to flourish, with understanding how we can make communities accessible for every person and how we can help every person be and feel included in those communities. We use our “attention and wisdom” to “build and sustain accessible and inclusive communities.” I believe “attention” includes “listening and understanding.” I believe “wisdom” includes “respecting and responding” in ways that prevent and address inequities – at the individual, community and association of congregation levels.
  • I believe these ideas should be explicit in our Bylaws. I believe “Equity CALLS us to listen, understand, respect and respond to one another” in ways that support every person’s right to flourish.

“What is Love to YOU?”

Thanks for “listening.”

1 Like
23

I continue to believe that our Seven Principles remain superior in substance, style, and spiritual content as compared to the Revised Article II text and should be retained.

5 Likes
24

I understand about the enforced silence here forcing people to move to other spaces. I would have liked a strong advocacy movement to object to that, not simple acceptance of that silencing. We are too adaptable. I agree about the structure being somewhat limiting, though I believe, as one of my other groups tested out this platform (Discourse, I believe) for its communications, that other features could have been made available if the UUA so chose (polls, for one).

I obviously do not get here often myself, so am catching up and will be back more frequently as we get closer to GA.

25

I assume you are speaking generally rather than to me personally, as far as"simple acceptance of that silencing."

Advocacy on my part (even though I did and do not plan to participate in the Amendments process or GA 2024) included:

  • Revisiting each active Amendment thread right before Discussion was closed (I think I actually had to re-edit existing comments in some cases) to redirect people to the group you mention, Donald WIlson’s UU GOvernance group, and the Blue Boat Passengers group for as long as it would remain open (and would include updates re other resources);

  • Advocating for an extension of voting hours at GA to be more inclusive of people on the West Coast;

  • Advocating for the Board to reverse its decision to stop recording its Open Houses shortly before GA (these are held at 4:00 Pacific Time so do not provide equitable access to many working class West Coast UUs);

  • Advocating, pre-GA, that the Commission provide specifics about those with whom it had met (not individuals’ names but groups names, specific dates of each open session, etc.) in order to meet the Charge for the process to be as transparent as possible;

  • Advocating for specifics of the Commission’s meetings with people to be released (such as transcripts, etc.*);

  • Advocating for decision-makers at GA to take responsibility for messaging I felt was inappropriately one-sided;

  • Advocating for a full correction to be made about the misrepresentation of the amendment presented by @Janet Leavens (which I co-authored/co-edited);

  • Reactivating the Blue Boat Passengers discussion group on Facebook along with my co-admin as soon as we learned the Discuss board was not allowing commenting on the Amendments for which people were seeking congregational support;

  • Continuing to promote “all sides” discussion in that group and by cross-linking resources, and to advocate for this approach. Note: This approach worked well for our congregation in its discussion and ultimate adoption of the 8th Principle. I supported and continue to support the 8th Principle. I opposed and continue to oppose the so-called “Gadfly” narrative of the complex conflicts the Article II process may have catalyzed but did not cause.

*Regarding transcripts–I first suggested this regarding a meeting with a group that I understood wanted the transcript released. I now believe it would be helpful to release transcripts of the COmmission-sponsored feedback sessions that were recorded for the Commission’s benefit (not the break-out sessions, but the general presentations and reporting back from the breakout sessions). This in my view could help allay the misconception for people “late to the party” that there hasn’t already been extensive outreach for feedback, even though some people and some congregations remained unaware of this until quite late in the game.

ETA: @Sally it looks to me like polls can be done here. I see a “poll” option in the settings button (cog-looking thing on far right). Polls have sometimes been useful tools for discussion, in other venues.

26

Yes, of course I am speaking generally! I apologize for any misunderstanding.

I am guilty myself; I have shared as much as I find with an “off-site delegates” list of about 20 people that I have been cultivating since the first off-site beta test in 2010, with my society’s social-action team, with the UUJEC board of trustees (of which I am a member), and with relevant folks in the N.J. UU state advocacy network.
I have not done any formal advocacy, but rather disseminate what I can find as far as I am able. I was on an active UUA GA e-mail list before about 2016 or so (I’m not sure of the year; I could be rather far off; time is notoriously difficult to estimate accurately) when it was shut down in favor of the previous online GA discussion page, which had virtually no traffic and have continually provided feedback that e-mail lists work, as almost everyone has some e-mail service.
I have been a delegate, either on-site or off, almost every year since 2009—stepped back when we had enough other folks interested in attending as a delegate when it was local, I think in 2018? When I am an off-site delegate, I watch events at the Central Unitarian building and publish the schedule to the society members, hoping to get folks to watch with me. I sometimes get 1 or 2 for the Ware lecture or some other session. Even when we streamed last year’s Sunday service as our weekly service, we had just a handful of folks show up.

1 Like
27

UUCJ, The UU Church of Jacksonville, FL, sent this letter in the link below to all UUA congregations with 50 or more members plus all smaller Florida congregations. The letter is signed by the Minister, the Board President, and the Co-Chairs of the UUCJ Article II Review Task Force. This action was approved by the Board in light of the 80 to 4 vote against the proposed changes to Article II at our congregational meeting on April 21. Please follow the provided link.

3 Likes
28

Thanks, Frank! We have something less than 150 members—only 3 delegates the last 2 years, not 4, as we have had in the past—but I have not seen your letter. Did you send it directly, or through the UUA? My long-time complaint about communications from the UUA administration is that they communicate directly with the society president, and perhaps one other person in the society, and while this was closed, there was no central discussion place. (I am not sure if the online GA discussion still exists; there is a space for discussion of Web-site theme questions, etc., but super-low frequency; I get maybe 1 e-mail a month though I have subscribed to a number of topics It is rare to get a reply.)

I think we are going to have one more discussion session before GA—we had one on May 5th, and ran out of time before discussing all 4 amendments, so I will forward it to the Central Unitarian members for whom I have e-mail addresses, and print out a few to bring on Sunday.

29

I didn’t send it. The UUCJ sent it.

30

O.K.—it came through notifications on this forum, so I guess it is as a result of me subscribing to this topic. However it came, I just sent it to about 70 members of my society to whom I e-mail only rarely for societywide matters of importance (with an unsubscribe option, always).

31

Looking at the resources they reference supporting their decision (Article II Resources - Unitarian Universalist Church of Jacksonville), other than documentation of their pro and con discussion and posting of the actual changes, the majority of their commentary and support for their decision comes from folks representing a group that explicitly states their purpose is to “generate discussion in order to defeat its passage at the 2024 General Assembly.” That is a choice they can make, but it does not represent an unbiased pov.

1 Like
32

So [quote=“Deb2891, post:31, topic:1457”]
other than documentation of their pro and con discussion and posting of the actual changes, the majority of their commentary and support for their decision comes from folks representing a group that explicitly states their purpose is to “generate discussion in order to defeat its passage at the 2024 General Assembly.” That is a choice they can make, but it does not represent an unbiased pov.
[/quote]

Personally, I have been in favor of the Article II revision (just to be clear on my own stance), but what you describe here is fully parallel with how the UUA has proceeded. The UUA has “generated discussion [and resources] in order to [support] its passage at the 2024 General Assembly.” Fully parallel to how the UUA has proceeded—forwarding a viewpoint. @fjcasper

4 Likes
33

The congregation provided a link to Article II Resources, which were accessible online, describing their process and showing some materials used. As @Deb2891 noted, a number of these were authored by Ken Christiansen (who has also provided his own story within UU’ism online). He is listed as a member of the task force on the second charter, February 2024 (so I assume he is a member of this congregation) but not on the first charter, August 2023.

I have some questions I would appreciate members of the congregation’s Article II Task Force answering about the process and resources. I have gotten a partial answer from one of the members in a Facebook group. However, I believe this forum, accessible and more likely to be reviewed by all as GA approaches, is an appropriate place to further inform those to whom this letter is addressed as an official inter-congregational communication.

I agree with @BekWheeler 's comment that The UUA has “generated discussion [and resources] in order to [support] its passage at the 2024 General Assembly.” This also seems to be the case with of a number of educational resources. There are congregations (including hers and mine) where the approach of those seeking to promote engagement with Article II have included or mentioned materials with a range of viewpoints, both “pro” and “con.”

I continue to believe this is a better approach for an informed vote that more truly represents congregational consent to (or rejection of) the proposed changes. In this vein, I believe this congregation’s letter and resources sharing its process and conclusion should be included in resources offered by congregations seeking to promote real discussion and truly informed choices.

There is much I like about the described process of engagement and discernment–its initial process gathering information from the congregation, its stated commitment to treat the points of view of all with respect, the year-long process of study and discernment, the engagement signaled by holding five town halls, the inclusivity and privacy of the vote, and the transparency in making much of this available for other congregations to review.

I see causes of concern or inquiry in some of the resources, and I have a process/inclusivity question about the Article II Task Force. As noted, a number of the presentations are by Ken Christiansen, who has spoken extensively about his opposition to current directions perceived in the UUA and in UU’ism well before the Article II Revisions were being discussed among congregations. To me, the “Questions with Pro/Con Answers” resource sounds like the answers were written or at least summarized by someone with a “Con” perspective. That is, I don’t feel that the “pro” answers really represent a good faith or at least an accurate understanding of the issues from this perspective.

So my first question is, did the Article II Task Force itself contain people who were both for and against the Article II Revisions?

Also, certain resources have been provided and others only mentioned.

How complete is the resource list? Are the results of the other Town Halls available to share? Is the complete book list that was available to congregants to check out during the discernment process available? A Task Force member has commented in a public Facebook group that UUA resources were included and that among the books were three partisan UU-authored titles, from authors on “both sides.” I would really be interested to see a complete list of the resources that were made readily available during the discernment process, as I think what to include among resources is a question many congregations grapple with, and there is not a simple answer.

Thank you.

1 Like
34

Excerpt from the below-linked essay:

The current UUA leadership, the two UU seminaries and some national UU groups are trying to transform UU from a liberal church into a fundamentalist utopian political collectivist movement, explicitly describing its goal of “collective liberation.”.

Collectivists prioritize the movement’s goals over individual rights, freedoms and liberties. Thus, throughout history, utopian collectivist religious and political movements have employed various methods that dehumanize their members. These methods include considering members primarily as generic categories and cogs in the system rather than unique individuals, removing basic civil rights and individual liberties, authoritarian governance, dogmatism and propaganda, undermining basic democratic rights, suppressing viewpoint diversity, and shaming and guilt-tripping members into compliance.

The classic book on this topic is social philosopher Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements.

The Unitarian Universalist Association leadership’s systematic dehumanization of laity

1 Like
35

Kara: You asked, “What is love to you?” Love is wishing another well. So said my sophomore HS teacher in 1961. I thought she was out of touch with reality … and our raging hormones. But I never forgot how true and wise she was. I wish you well. And I support having love in the center of our shared values. I wish all beings well.

2 Likes
36

Is there any such a thing as a complete lack of bias in some form or another? I doubt it. The attempt at an absence of bias is certainly worthy, and is considered to be the moral holy grail in some disciplines. That effort though must involve a cornerstone Enlightenment principle, known to us UU’s as the 4th principle, a free and responsible search for truth and meaning. This in turn involves a high respect for our rational capacities. Ironically, UU leadership has declared all of this as properties of white supremacy and hopelessly compromised. In short, those of us defending our principles and sources are viewed as and have been called white supremacists by leadership. That’s odd and insulting enough. But if you embrace that perspective you are essentially telling all UU’s who have known and loved UUism that they have in reality been living a lie, that all this time they’ve been suffering a terrible mistake in regard in the kind of life they thought they were living, being under the mistaken impression that they were embracing anti-oppression by dint of the first principle. I suspect therefore that leadership, the new re-write, and those who wrote it are in a very poor position to question and understand how bias of any kind and amount might be effective in their critics.

4 Likes
37

David, who is the author of this article that you cite in your own linked essay? It has a UUA url, but I see no author to it….

From Bek Wheeler

38

@fjcasper,

  1. I have been trying to find whether the UUA actually affirms the Tema Okun sort of definition of white supremacy. Haven’t found an answer to that yet.

  2. Yes, we indeed had thought that a deep life commitment to the moral compass of “honor the inherent worth and dignity of every person” is itself an anti-oppression statement. I still think so. It IS my guiding light.

1 Like
39

Thanks @marshaklaya ! I wish you well !

40

I wish you both well, but some part of me couldn’t help but read this like “Bless your heart”