Ahh, I was looking at an older version
Yes.
1 Like
Sorry about that, so many versions still online
1 Like
Why are you sending me a definition of covenant?
Sorry. The forum wouldnât let me just say yes. 20 character minimum.
Yes, this is the place. Amendment 52 was changed somewhat by the board/commission; the proposer has expressed concern about that, but the Animal Ministry has supported the revision anyway. I hope/expect that searching these pages for âAmendment 52â will bring up some comments on it. The last sentence was to be removed, but was instead left in.
I agree that the plain common meaning of covenant as a verb is to solemnly promise, commit to a binding agreement, or contract. All the âWe covenantâ statements are great goals and things I can promise to work toward but cannot promise to complete or achieve, which is how some of them are worded now.
Example 1:" We covenant to protect Earth and ALL beings from exploitation." I cannot honestly promise that I could or will do this.
Example 2: âWe covenant to dismantle [take apart, destroy, cause to cease to exist] racism and ALL forms of systemic oppression.â I agree with these goals and that I should work towards them. I cannot promise to accomplish these things, which is how I read these A2 statements now.
1 Like
Ordinarily I would agree with you, but the last two days of discussion have raised concerns that each of the proposed values could be interpreted in an absolutist or inequitable way. Thus, âprotect all beings from exploitationâ might be interpreted by some to mean that animals can never be consumed, and used against non-vegans. E.g. âPeaceâ can mean silencing just dissent and protest, âReasonâ can empower the dismissing of personal experiences, and âGenerosityâ can mean shaming or excluding those donât have the resources to give freely of what they have. I would have thought that having Love at the center, along with the other values, would assure more compassionate and reasonable interpretations of the new Values, but I am concerned now that this whole framework is too ambiguous and problematic, and must unfortunately vote no.
3 Likes
Nicely said. I think there are too many issues to just vote yes and hope for amendments later.
2 Likes
I will preface this by saying I am not a voting delegate to this GA, simply a UU who is observing and trying to understand the various viewpoints presented.
In my imperfect reading of the comments made here and during the live session I feel that there is a significant amount of distrust and confusion concerning the wording of the proposed Article II. While I know that part of the process is to work though the discomfort zone towards a consensus, something seems to be obstructing that here.
In discussions in our small congregation we kept coming back to the phrase regarding holding each other accountable. We tried to envision how that might look, and came away both confused and concerned. And after watching todayâs session (thinking of the speaker who was cut short as being out of order) I find my concerns remain, and perhaps even stronger.
I do thank the Article II committee for their hard work on this. And I do not envy the work of the voting delegates who need to vote on this matter. But were I in their position I am not sure I could vote for it as worded given the concerns I have raised.
However the vote goes I hope both sides can come together and continue the work going forward, whether that is in the implementation of the article as presented or in the work of considering how to move forward in two years.
(Edited to give more personal background) Some 30+ years ago I left Christianity, having been a Southern Baptist for some time. This past week that denomination considered a resolution that would expel congregations who had women pastors. While that larger scoped initiative failed they did expel one particular congregation (First Baptist of Alexandria, VA) for having a woman pastor.
This is the atmosphere and experience I bring to the table for this weekâs GA, and when I hear talk of being accountable to each other my mind unfortunately goes to the recent actions of the Southern Baptists.
2 Likes
RJohnson, I have more concern that we have a small number of people bringing up the same concerns over and over. They are entitled to their concerns but unfortunately the nature of our forums can often make the concerns seem more extensive or wide-spread than they are.
Also, we donât operate by consensus - that would be nearly impossible to achieve among a large (or even small) group of UUs. Voting No and delaying the process wonât change that.
I donât know exactly what your congregationâs concerns about accountability are so I canât speak to them. I commented elsewhere that I think we have tended to impute punishment, enforcement and legality into that concept even though the Article II revision does not envision that nor does anyone desire it. I think that speaks more to our time and place than it does to anything in the proposal.
1 Like
I hope you do come around to my stance. Also, I have never opposed adding anything to the Principles and Sources, such as the eighth principle, just the removal of the Principles, and to a lesser extend the Sources, especially when I find the new revisions woefully inaccurate with their being ambiguous and divisive one of their flaws.
1 Like
Article II revision would establish UU values. It would not be a CREED. We welcome people in accord with these values. For me, we would not welcome someone promoting HATE. For me, we would not welcome someone promoting supremacy of one group over another. As a group, we are committed to dismantling oppression. We would not welcome words or actions that promote oppression. We welcome people who support Love, no matter their religious background or beliefs
1 Like
it says âcovenantâ seven times
I was surprised not to hear among the CON comments anything about how the UUA might become an activist organization if Article II is adopted. This issue of using resources to act in the world outside our congregations goes way out of what I would expect from a liberal religion. We already have affiliated organizations like UUSC and friendly organizations like Amnesty and WCK and lots more which do activism in the world and to which we can individually contribute. Why are we asking our whole faith to commit to particular ways of acting in the world? As with other institutions, the more we let them stray off neutrality, the less they can be places for consensus building. The world is complicated and there are issues which are complex that we have had the capacity to entertain and discuss amongst ourselves. By writing ourselves as an organization that can become more partisan we become more the problem than the solution.
1 Like
The tension between activism and spirituality has been present since I became a UU in 1991. Some UUs would prefer more activism or different activism and some would prefer less. In all my UU communities we have respected how much and what sort of activism people wanted to do. And we have never been neutral, at least as far as issues went - heck, the president of the UUA and the director of Beacon Press came close to being arrested for publishing the Pentagon Papers. Yes, we need to work with outside organizations, partly because we are small and partly because they may know more than we do. But we have a long history of showing up, and that will continue, I hope, regardless of the Art II vote.
4 Likes
Amy, I agree with your comment that legal counsel was clear about the AII amendment. However, I was not at all clear where to find her opinion. Where is it posted? Thanks, David
I posted a link to it in my comment. I got it from todayâs session Q&A in Whova.
Apologize. I meant to say CREED.
Stuff happens (substitute the more vulgar phrase if you prefer) is a slang sentence that is used as a simple existential observation that life is full of unfortunate unpredictable events, similar to the French French, câest la vie. The sentence is an acknowledgment that bad things happen to people seemingly for no particular reason. And, in our US History, some have experienced many, many more bad things that others. Unfortunately easy to pass along if âstuffâ isnât paid attention to.
I choose Unitarian Universalism precisely because, during my 68 years of life, when I heard the phrase âstuff happensâ my brain often goes directly to what I consider a very UU response⌠âDefine stuff. Define happens.â I. Love. That. When we question ⌠beautiful things happen. Like physically growing as a kid, it can hurt.
So it is every time we choose to wrestle with hard things in an effort to reach collective and personal understanding yet retain our congregational independence. Personally, I do not feel threatened. Can we again be in community and grow with the experience. Yes we can.
Thank goodness weâll never, ever reach a common religious understanding For me, thatâs the beauty of this denomination. Imagine how dull and boring it could become if we stopped trying?
I believe what weâre trying to do with Article II is stretch ourselves to embrace difficult things that were brought to our attention. My white upbringing as a middle-class man ensured I would not easily see others pain from the power structure created and held onto by so many⌠In this faith, and/or liberal religion, we continue to give ourselves permission to seek change in the world and within ourselves. When something feels, or is proven, wrong, we get to work.
In my opinion, thatâs exactly what the Article II Study Commission had done. By asking us to consider some things we may not be comfortable even acknowledging (your mileage may vary), itâs how UUâs do hard things.
Itâs precisely because UUâs are not afraid to grapple with meaning, tease out the difficult, strive to understand and come at issues from so many, many different perspectives and opinions that I will choose to remain. So many tools, so many good people to hlep us learn to use new ones.
The real world is complex, layered and wonderful. Our place in it is changing because âstuffâ is happening that I believe we need to embrace with love. To me, this is all about continuing UUism as a Living Tradition. Do I like all of it, of course not. Have I been deeply hurt in my community? I have, and with my UU friends learned to lean in with love and work to ensure others in my congregation do not experience that particular harm again. Nowhere else have I found a religious denomination, liberal or otherwise allowing such freedom of questioning thought and action. Or, at least thatâs how âwhiteâ me used to believe.
Now, with the introduction of the 8th Principle, asking UUâs to consider our entire history. Iâve learned facts never taught in public schools. The past does not define us, yet we can go back to claim something important. Thatâs Sankofa as I heard it described this year. For generations the Akan people of Ghana have found it to be a helpful and healing way into the future. Can Sankofa serve as a guiding light of togetherness in our communities? Who knows the future. All are worthy and all are welcome. I believe the Final Proposed Revisions WITH Amendments of Article II support this.
Regardless of what happens with this vote, I intend to remain and continue to "Define stuff. And define⌠âwhat happensâ. I hope we do it together. 
5 Likes