Amendment 1 to Article II - Proposed by Patricia Shifferd

Bold underlining indicate insertion ; [brackets indicate deletion.]

44 Section C-2.3. Inspirations.
45 As Unitarian Universalists, we use, and are inspired by, sacred and secular understandings
46 that help us to live into our values. We respect the histories, contexts and cultures in which
47 they were created and are currently practiced. These sources ground us and sustain us in
48 ordinary, difficult, and joyous times. Grateful for the religious ancestries we inherit and the
49 diversity which enriches our faith, we are called to ever deepen and expand our wisdom
Included in these ancestries are

Direct experience of that transcending
mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of
the spirit and an openness to the forces that create and uphold life;

Words and deeds of prophetic people
which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice,
compassion, and the transforming power of love;

Wisdom from the world’s religions which
inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;

Jewish and Christian teachings which call us
to respond to God’s love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;

Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed
the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against
idolatries of the mind and spirit;

Spiritual teachings of Earth-centered
traditions which celebrate the scared circle of life and instruct us to live in
harmony with the rhythms of nature.


I believe this explicit inclusion of the sources, an appeal to the widest possible set of sources, is essential to building a truly anti-racist, anti-oppression, multi-cultural worlds because it requires us to actively welcome into our thinking and consideration ALL the understandings of the world.


I like the Leavens amendment for the Sources better because it avoids the laundry list problem of excluding some future specific source.


I, too, like being explicit in citing sources. It makes it very clear that our sources are widely varied instead of leaving it up to assumption or interpretation.

1 Like

Friendly amendment to the next-to-last line: Change “scared” to “sacred”.


I definitely could support this amendment.

FYI, this is the draft UUFMC Statement about Amendment 1:

If this Amendment were to be included, we would suggest adding a sentence explaining that this is the HISTORICAL list which became too exhausting to update. But that kind of statement really doesn’t belong in the document!

Therefore, we recommend not using this amendment and replacing it with a combination of amendments 5 and 34 (see UUFMC Statement about Amendment 5).

1 Like

Strongly oppose. The current six sources are far too christocentric to be useful in this day and age. There is another priority amendment that does this better, with a revised list that simply lists all world religions as being sources.


My only issue is with this is this line: Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God’s love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;

I think it should be more inclusive and read: All religious writings and texts in which teachings call us to respond to God’s love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;

Because God is in but not limited to Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism; NOT just Jewish and Christian teachings as stated.

1 Like

I also have a problem with that line; your version would help, but “responding to God’s love” does not work for me as a nontheist.

Yes, I have a hard time with that also, but I’m not sure what would be a good substitute. God(s), deity/ies, and creator(s) all get intermingled in “Religions” and It is hard to decide which to use to represent everyone’s views because we are so open and welcoming of other spiritualities/denominations. And/or eliminate “God” and focus on Love!?

1 Like

What about

All religious writings and texts in which teachings call us to love our neighbors as ourselves

no god needed!


I support the alternative amendment proposal by Leavens that accomplishes the same purpose of adding our sources back in but is a bit more inclusive and expanded in its language. Theologically, sources are important to establishing values and then principles (training in practical theology and ethics here) - I also am a delegate. I appreciate your efforts here Patricia Shifferd as well, and again, I support Leavens’ version.


I am against this amendment and am optimistic about the A2SC’s a combining of 5 and 51 after this GA. I find this amendment leaves out too much and doesn’t meet the A2SC’s charge Charge to the Article II Study Commission |


Patricia Shifferd (sorry, I don’t see a way to tag you) and others commenting on this thread (or any of the amendments that were opposed by the Commission and voted down), I understand that this part of the Discuss site will be locked on Tuesday. The lay-led public Facebook group for discussing Article II and GA, Blue Boat Passengers, will remain open for commenting a couple weeks longer and will still be visible for viewing after that, as a public record.

To those who followed the progress of this Amendment and Amendment 51, or were confused between them, this issue is also addressed in this group (which was founded by me, one of the original co-editors of Amendment #51). In this group and in emails, we asked @CharlesD and others to address the confusion caused by the “con” speakers for our amendment BEFORE the voting closed. They declined to do so or to hold a revote.

The con speakers against our amendment referred to other amendments, referenced a “list” of sources, and in the case of one speaker, described and opposed THIS amendment with its “Judeo-christian” Source (not in Amendment #51). We suggested a revote might be held after being sure delegates understood which amendment was which. This was refused on the grounds that because the ballot included the language of each amendment (which we do hope all delegates read), no clarification was needed.

Anyone who wishes to comment in the Blue Boat group may, but please be sure to review the rules and the announcement about the planned suspension of the group before commenting. Thank you.

Blue Boat Passengers: Info & Constructive Discussion re Article II, etc. | Announcement: This group will soon be suspended | Facebook

1 Like

Here are some comments about the 15-congregation amendment process, from someone who used to be on the GA Planning Committee:

"“Unlike how the amendment process was run for this GA (ie at the discretion of the moderators and board), the process you’ve mentioned is bylaw and subject to little to no interpretation. I wouldn’t wait however. You need to get the petition from the UUA Board Secretary in the next couple weeks, and you have to have it turned Into the Board before February 1st.”

“If one congregation has a thought, send an email to 50 others and say “we are discussing X. What do you think?”
That is also the kind of thing that we have District and Regional assemblies for, both in person and virtual.
That is also the type of thing your religious professionals should be talking about at their regular meetings with their colleagues like minister Association chapter meetings.
It is the responsibility of your board president and other trustees to be deeply aware of the affairs of your closest congregations.
You discover by being in relationship and talking to one another.
You coordinate by email and phone call, same as we have for the last quarter century.”

“You don’t even have to have a congregational vote. You just have to get their board to sign off.” ETA: You must check this–rules vary by congregation. Also, look for the UU Governance Lab group on Facebook to connect with Donald Wilson directly.

Also, a comment from another member who was participating on Discuss:
“Some of us are connecting on Slack, mainly to remain in contact with others interested in specific amendments or the amendment process in general at GA 2024.”…/zt-1y0pvelub-YVxUFoPpTrZ…