“I don’t know exactly what your congregation’s concerns about accountability are so I can’t 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.”
Thank you for your response, Amy. The questions that I heard during our discussion involved two points:
To whom are we to be held accountable?
By what standards will our actions/involvement/words be judged for accountability?
Also, by consensus I mean a place where those with concerns about a proposal reach a position where they can say sincerely that while they do not agree wholeheartedly with the proposal they will not stand in the way of its implementation. It is a concept that was addressed during my time at Midwest Leadership School many years ago.
Finally I would point out that your statement about a small number bringing up the same concerns over and over may or may not be accurate. In the vote concerning the amendment regarding reason being added we had 30% supporting it. Will all 30% vote against the adoption of the articles with that amendment having been defeated? I doubt it. But can you really say that 634 voting delegates is a small number?
Our co-moderator asked us today, “What will you do if your side wins?” Perhaps it is good for all of us, on both sides, to begin considering that question as the voting period comes to an end. Because I believe that will dictate the success or failure of our vote today…not who wins, but how they accept victory.
I do not think the concerns are by a few people. Congregations voted against Article 2 according to several speakers on the Con side. Not 1/2 or a few people in a congregations. So I think the concerns are more wide spread than you might think.
My own support was contingent on amendments being passed that signaled a less polarized viewing of issues and willingness to create a true big tent, including for humanists, those opposed to (actual, aggressors’) war, and those who continue to support reason as a distinctive feature of our faith and an indispensable means for the justice we wish to bring about.
Although most who weighed in at my own congregation expressed enthusiasm for the changes, and this is consistent with our acceptance of the 8th Principle, which I also supported, I view Article II (and the coming potential changes to Article III) as much more complicated. I see a polarized and uncompromising way of viewing issues such as marginalization (for which I, as someone marginalized for a couple decades, see reason as an indispensable tool to fight marginalization and engage constructively in my congregation) as inconsistent with the approach our congregation has been working towards over the past 1-2 years. I am not the only one in my congregation who expressed concerns, although I don’t know what percentage engaged in our process.
It appears that the UUA is locking each thread on this Discuss board as soon as the vote results are announced.
As noted elsewhere, I believe the main discussions after the vote on Article II–whichever way it goes–will now have to take place in each congregation. I hope congregations will be able to work out a less polarizing and divisive approach than we have seen in these campaigns. The Blue Boat Passengers group may also shortly close down but will remain open at least a day or two to allow people to debrief. Staying active any longer would depend on whether others are able to provide a balanced moderation team during this time period, as I continue to have conflicting obligations and am not able to participate significantly right now.
Whichever way the final vote on Article II goes, there are people in your congregation who care about you, whether they agree with your position or not, need your support and understanding, and offer you theirs. Most of us may move on to matters such as the coming national election that need all of our efforts. The same injustices that existed in the world yesterday exist today. May Unitarian Universalists find the will and the methods to continue the good fight.
For me, our principles and values are the core of who we are as a community, the essence of what it is that we welcome people to. We are not just a group of people welcoming other people. We are a group of people who come together because of those shared principles and values. If you aren’t drawn to them, why are you drawn to our faith community? Would I throw anyone out for thinking differently? No. But I might ask someone to leave if they behave in ways that run counter to those shared principles and values. There has to be something that says who we are and why someone might want to join us and for me, that is our principles and values.
@RJohnson64, to answer the question about accountability: we are accountable to each other, as a community of faith. We’re a voluntary association, so the nature of that accountability is persuasive rather than coercive. I see it as closer to what we do when we discover we’ve upset a friend or partner. The challenge for me there, as a conflict avoidant person, is learning how to be direct but respectful, rather than letting resentments fester. As for standards, they are what we agree that they are. And I hope as we talk to one another those standards will evolve.
I am glad to know that we share a mutual understanding of consensus - but it’s not how GA governance works, nor most of our congregations. If we have it, great, but as an association we have committed to democratic practice. (I think as a practical matter small groups tend to work better when they can develop a consensus, but in the small groups that I have been in there are also the sort of relationships that make it easier for people not to stand in the way of something they might not been full in support of. That takes a lot of maturity.) We have set the bar for passage high for serious matters such as the A2 proposal and I think that is the closest we are going to get to consensus in our process.
Admittedly, my observation about the number objecting to the A2 proposal was not scientific - but it wasn’t entirely mine. People, such as the Rev Dennis McCarty, who have studied it more closely have made the same observation and my observations concur with his.
I voted against the Reason amendment but I would still have voted for the whole proposal if it passed. Same with Stebbins. I supported the Wheeler amendment and had grave concerns about the Peace amendment that might have changed my vote on the whole proposal if it had passed. While I had not expected the Peace or Reason proposals to pass I was surprised by how lopsided the vote was. While there could certainly be people who will vote down the whole thing based on one or more amendments not passing, I know at least one delegate who strongly supported the Reason amendment but was planning to vote no on the whole proposal. So who knows.
I have been thinking about Charles DuMond’s question for a while. Short term, a whole lot of feelings. Long term, we continue doing church. And now I have to get ready for church, which includes a meeting with a consultant to discuss security concerns.
Thank you for your response, Amy. Whichever side prevails in the vote there is a significant work to be done in restoring the bonds of trust that have some clearly feel have been damaged during this long process. Best of luck with your meeting, and may your congregation (and all others) remain safe in this tumultuous time.