Just a clarification on facts. You are right that the recent history including the SRLCH maybe not be the cause of the review of Article II. But it is very relevant in terms of the power structure including who was named to the commission and which groups of UUs were not represented on the commission.
1 Like
Let me give an example. I am happy to be fact-checked if I do not all the facts here since I do not know every interaction of people with the A2 Task Force or other UUA groups on the revision. When asking for resources on the revision were links like the one Ddestuua posted or like
https://savethe7principles.org/
given as well as links to sites supporting the change? I have not seen places in the A2 materials where they do this, but I would be happy to be corrected.
1 Like
Iâm uncomfortable with this new Article II Draft. Iâm a UU. Iâm also an artist. Understanding color theory is part of my job. Colors mean something. A coward is mostly associated with the color yellow. Safety, police, UN are associated with the color Blue. An angry person is associated with the color red. This is debatable depending on the context. The LGBTQ Community is associated with the color purple. But, in times past, Purple was associated with royalty. This went so far as in Europe, clergy were ordered to wear purple. Blue in religion, especially in Christianity can be associated with the Virgin Mary.
With that background. I know we are defenders of the LGBT community, and we have the Rainbow Flag, but itâs only a flag if it looks like a flag, otherwise these are just colors that are on the color spectrum, that is visible to the human eye. A main part of church, is the offering of money. We pass the plate around. Some could say we are generous with our money. Money, especially dollar bills are green. On the UUA.org website there is a section for âGiving and Generosityâ for the money. It canât be just coincidental that the value flower pedal for generosity is the color green and that the church relies on peoples donations. Are we saying the best way to be a UU under this new system is if our congregants have a open purse and wallet policy?
Other thoughts, Our new direction is Love is a UU value. With the color Green, that means Green with Envy. Envy is the opposite of love. Love is unconditional and balanced . Each side gives and gets something. Envy is selfish thinking everybody has something better than the person holding on to envy and jealousy and feeling contempt that the envious person is somehow slighted, despite all evidence to the contrary. I have seen my fair share of toxic people thinking they need to humiliate me to feel better about themselves. But again I am not sure giving money my greenback is the only way to be generous? This is why I would stick with the 7 Principles being superior.
1 Like
Years ago, the late Rev. Erinn Melby told me about her experience as a student member of the Admissions Committee of Starr King School for the Ministry. She had come to the conclusion that if there were strong differing feelings about a particular candidate, the answer should always be âNoâ. I have held this as a useful guideline for any decision.
I try not to stand in the way of change. Iâm old enough to prefer letting go and turning things over to creative people who have more energy than I. This has caused me to wrestle with the proposed changes to Article II. However, my heart is now settled. There is too much heat around this issue. The answer to making any changes at this time should be a decisive âNO!â
- Marnie Singer, M.Div., not ordained
2 Likes
The curriculum is generally updated on a regular cycle. The RE curriculum available now teaches the Valuesâthat have not yet been approved. People who say that it doesnât matter how we vote, their congregation will continue to use the 7 Principles have a problem. There wonât be any RE curriculum on the 7 Principles, if we vote for the Revision.
1 Like
Uh, the curriculum is not updated on a regular cycle?
Should be? Yes. But itâs not.
Proof: my decade long experience as a UU professional religious educator.
1 Like
Tim could be correct. I only have brief experience as a volunteer with RE. That means that the new âValuesâ material that is out now, will be available a long time, and the old 7 Principles material is simply in the dust bin. If you were counting on teaching your children the Principles, youâre out of luck.
Wow is that a wild leap from my comment.
The tapestry curriculum isnât going anywhere. I doubt itâll ever be deleted. If youâre worried it will be, go download the relevant curriculum. Youâll specifically want the love whatevers us series. The youngest deals with the current principles. The middle one deals with the sources. (I forget the actual names.)
UUA curriculum just doesnât go away like that like the conspiracy suggests. My last church was still using the haunting house curriculum from the 60s. UU curriculum never dies or disappears - religious educators havenât let it happen yet, and there is no reason to think it will happen in the future.
The reaction of a religious educator to parent wanting any kind of curriculum to do at home with their family would be effervescent joy. If next year the values were to pass and we focused on it in RE, and a parent wanted to do a principles curriculum at home, Iâd overwhelm them with possibilities.
I think there is one UUA curriculum out there on the values? I dunno. I havenât looked into it to be frank. Iâm one of the religious educators who isnât going big into article 2 with kids until it passes. Mentioned the process and itâs happening but I donât want kids focused on memorizing anything in RE. Itâs about who they are becoming, not what they know.
I know some independent curriculum folk have incorporated the values into them. Honestly I think the values will be a bit easier to teach than the principles. Doesnât make them necessarily better or worse, just easier.
2 Likes
New Curriculum New Article II Congregational Resources from the Field | UUA.org
Five Year implementation plan (June 2023 - Third Year report)
https://www.uua.org/files/2023-08/2023_wcc_implementation_plan.pdf
I donât think the 2024 - fourth year report has been released yet.
2 Likes
Hi Terri, I notice that another one of your posts has been flagged and removed. I have the post backed up and I just reread it. I was wondering if I can get your permission to repost portions of it that are factual and based on your feelings. I feel that the factual information is very important. I have noticed some posts from another person that I find divisive and hurtful to me (mainly stating a pro UUA view), in particular in that they personally attack another person and compare that person to a fascist and MAGAist. I asked for a moderator to flag and review some of those posts but so far it has been denied. It turns out that individual is an active director of religious education and is currently serving on the UUA Nominating Committee. I am in favor of everyone being respectful and factual and feel spirited debate is needed, but believe in some degree of moderation and even flagging of posts that cross the line. However, I donât think singling out posts on the con side is appropriate especially if they are not that different in tone from other posts that are spirited debate.
1 Like
I have been trying to read or hear answers to several questions about the Article II Rewrite but I have been told theyâve been answered before and I just either missed them or didnât hear them. So please indulge me. If anyone who supports the Article II Rewrite can explain in clear language answers to the following questions, I would greatly appreciate it.
-
Why was it necessary to change the purpose of the UUA from serving the congregations to assisting the congregations?
-
Why was it necessary to add the words âwho share our valuesâ to the Inclusion section?
-
Why was it necessary to change âindividual freedom of beliefâ to the âindividualâs right of conscience?â in the Freedom of Belief section?
-
Why was it necessary to replace ânothing shall be deemed to infringeâ with âcentral to our heritageâ in the Freedom of Belief section?
These are not insignificant changes. The study commission has told us they chose each word carefully. Why did they choose these?
4 Likes
I have to tell you. Steve, youâre the victim of one of the techniques often used by many supporters of the UUA. Theyâll respond to questions they cannot answer by saying itâs already been given elsewhere and you missed out or werenât paying attention. Itâs your burden to search for something I can say with some confidence is likely not even there. How do I know this? Long and involved struggles on Facebook. Now prepare for the denials.
1 Like
Most of this forum is confrontational. People holding fast to one side or the other.
But there are also people asking legitimate questions, such as Steven Myles above. Iâve seen almost no thoughtful responses to questions, only defensive dismissals of concerns and derisive characterizations. Terms like âsentimentalityâ to dismiss the Enlightenment bedrock that defines UU is insulting and offensive and totally unhelpful.
Arenât we better than this?
2 Likes
I had the pleasure of voting for the existing Article II at the 1985 General Assembly, which give you a clue about my age. I will enthusiastically vote in favor of the new one this year.
I am delighted that we are restating who we are, and who we aspire to be, for the benefit of a 21st-century audience, and not just for those of us who came of age in the 20th century. Thanks to the study commission and the thousands of others who contributed to the new version.
May we open our hymnals to No. 145 and sing of â[a] freedom that reveres the past, but trusts the dawning future more, and bids the soul, in search of truth, adventure boldly and explore.â And may we then echo James Russell Lowell, who was writing about racial justice when he said, âNew occasions teach new duties; time makes ancient good uncouth. They must upward still and onward, who would keep abreast of truth.â
I invite folks of all ages to join me in supporting the new Article II.
2 Likes
I read Terriâs (Alex Wise) post before it was removed, and do not recall anything wrong with it. I donât recall anything insulting in it, bad language, etc. The only thing I can think that possibly led to it being removed is that it quoted the current UUA President.
As noted earlier, posts where someone here falsely smears and insults another poster as ârightwingâ etc. are still here, so apparently insults are okay in this forum.
The UUA has provided very few open forums for UUs on this and other topics, and often actively censors and controls information to UUs and congregations, so I find it disheartening that they are removing âconâ arguments here for no apparent legitimate reason. Perhaps it was an innocent technical glitch, but I think the post should be put back.
As a strong believer in religious liberalism, pluralism, viewpoint diversity, freedom of belief and speech (No slippery slope arguments. Of course, there are beliefs and speech that are not allowed in UU congregations. Iâm not an absolutist), I find the UUA leadershipâs active censorship (For example, UU World removed letters to the editor), information control (Sending congregations only one-sided arguments on the bylaws rewrite) and, frankly, disinformation disturbing and going against the basic tenants of liberal religion and UU. There are many churches that are controlling, dogmatic, censorious, top-down, and patronizing, but UU isnât supposed to be one of them.
Read UU Minister Rev. Denise Tracyâs personal account of the top-down organized coercion and bullying she observed at last yearâs General Assembly:
1 Like
Iâve noticed another common tactic out there is to double down when proven wrong and refuse to admit when they make factual errors.
I wonder why that keeps happening too. Any thoughts Steve?
1 Like
Sure! I appreciate your supporting the cause of Unitarian Universalism, which most of us are here to do. I agree with you, that it needs to be even-handed. We all need to help each other to ensure the continuation of UUism as a free and responsible search for truth and meaning, somewhere we can welcome all, and not just those who âshare our values.â 
Terri
The phrase that went through my head, as I scroll, bottom up, through these posts, and saw this was yours, was âYou learn more with David.â No offense to anyone else, of course, but you go above and beyond in background research, plus you have a wealth of experience in UUism. So I have to thank you, David, for taking the time to weigh in here. Itâs, no doubt, making a world of positive difference, and will show up in the vote on Saturday, June 22nd! <3
Yes, that another tactic employed by UUA supporters, but itâs not the one Steve is now dealing with.
1 Like
Steve, asked some very important questions (pasted below). I have not seen any response to these questions. If such questions can not be clearly answered, it is best we pause any changes to Article II until such answers have been provided.
- Why was it necessary to change the purpose of the UUA from serving the congregations to assisting the congregations?
- Why was it necessary to add the words âwho share our valuesâ to the Inclusion section?
- Why was it necessary to change âindividual freedom of beliefâ to the âindividualâs right of conscience?â in the Freedom of Belief section?
- Why was it necessary to replace ânothing shall be deemed to infringeâ with âcentral to our heritageâ in the Freedom of Belief section?
2 Likes