Interesting, as I see the purpose of the UUA, as it is expressed in the UUA by-laws, a legal document, as to be the purpose of the organization, not a religious or philosophical motivation for an individual choosing to be a UU. Not sure how to align such divergent perspectives.
Hi @gubknap,
I wonder whether you would be open to further discussion of the ideas in these posts?
Iāve been thinking more about what might facilitate a constructive Amendment process - both during the next 6 months and the additional 6 months before the next GA.
It seems difficult to tease out whether folks who voted or wanted to vote NO just āneed to get used to the new language,ā or whether they have substantive concerns which, if understood by the Commission, might or might not be addressed. It seems possible that the new language does not express the new ideas clearly enough so that they can be understood and embraced in the way they were intended.
Itās great that we have a lot of ideas for specific wording changes, and that the Commission can look at and consider those ideas. But it would also help to express things in general terms. If both the Commission and the folks who voted NO on the Revision package could express their respective remaining concerns in general terms, I think that would facilitate constructive work for both groups.
A list of 4 examples of this can be seen on my post under the umbrella category āPreliminary List,ā but here Iāll just focus on my concern about your Amendment, number 11.
For the Purpose Section, the Amendments that passed were 30 (spiritual development), 26 (support creation of new UU communities). I support both of those Amendments.
However, the Amendment about Purposes that we did NOT have a chance to discuss and vote on was Amendment 11 (highest purpose: transform the world thru liberating love). (In my mind, this should have been the first Amendment that was considered at GA!)
Even if the word āhighestā is not included, by listing this purpose as the last one, and in a separate paragraph, it can be interpreted to imply that it is either the highest, most important, or perhaps is intended to summarize the rest.
I would like the intended implication to be clearly articulated so we can reflect on - and discuss - whether or not we all agree with that implication. Just as importantly, I believe the implication needs to be clearly articulated in the document itself.
I donāt feel strongly about the specific words used (I have already made multiple suggestions in discuss.uua.org). But my general concern is that the words do not convey a BALANCE or yin/yang or both/and - of āinner AND outer work,ā āindividual spiritual growth AND collective social activism,ā āindividual freedom AND interdependent community?ā etc.
Is there some reason the Commission would object to working to improve this balance? If so, I would like to understand it.
Thanks for ālistening!ā I hope you, the Commission, and the people who voted or wanted to vote NO on the package will consider expressing concerns in a general format similar to the above, in order to facilitate a constructive process.
I am puzzled by people who see the whole article II and see the first paragraph (which is highest in the number scheme) as applying strictly to the UUA headquarters and the rest of Article II with values and covenant (which are clearly viewed as religious or philosophical motivation for an individual choosing to be a UU) as applying to all and as defining our faith. Our faith has a religious purpose as well as a headquarters that has purposes that support our faith. People are bemoaning the loss of the old principles because they defined their religious faith in Article II. It was personal for them.
The Article is all a legal document. It is the only place that we use to define who we are.
I am not on the commission, but my understanding is that they will continue to look for discussion during this next year.
John G
| klsteb2 Kara Stebbins
June 27 |
- | - |
Hi @gubknap,
I wonder whether you would be open to further discussion of the ideas in these posts?
Iāve been thinking more about what might facilitate a constructive Amendment process - both during the next 6 months and the additional 6 months before the next GA.
It seems difficult to tease out whether folks who voted or wanted to vote NO just āneed to get used to the new language,ā or whether they have substantive concerns which, if understood by the Commission, might or might not be addressed. It seems possible that the new language does not express the new ideas clearly enough so that they can be understood and embraced in the way they were intended.
Itās great that we have a lot of ideas for specific wording changes, and that the Commission can look at and consider those ideas. But it would also help to express things in general terms. If both the Commission and the folks who voted NO on the Revision package could express their respective remaining concerns in general terms, I think that would facilitate constructive work for both groups.
A list of 4 examples of this can be seen on my post under the umbrella category āPreliminary List,ā but here Iāll just focus on my concern about your Amendment, number 11.
For the Purpose Section, the Amendments that passed were 30 (spiritual development), 26 (support creation of new UU communities). I support both of those Amendments.
However, the Amendment about Purposes that we did NOT have a chance to discuss and vote on was Amendment 11 (highest purpose: transform the world thru liberating love). (In my mind, this should have been the first Amendment that was considered at GA!)
Even if the word āhighestā is not included, by listing this purpose as the last one, and in a separate paragraph, it can be interpreted to imply that it is either the highest, most important, or perhaps is intended to summarize the rest.
I would like the intended implication to be clearly articulated so we can reflect on - and discuss - whether or not we all agree with that implication. Just as importantly, I believe the implication needs to be clearly articulated in the document itself.
I donāt feel strongly about the specific words used (I have already made multiple suggestions in discuss.uua.org). But my general concern is that the words do not convey a BALANCE or yin/yang or both/and - of āinner AND outer work,ā āindividual spiritual growth AND collective social activism,ā āindividual freedom AND interdependent community?ā etc.
Is there some reason the Commission would object to working to improve this balance? If so, I would like to understand it.
Thanks for ālistening!ā I hope you, the Commission, and the people who voted or wanted to vote NO on the package will consider expressing concerns in a general format similar to the above, in order to facilitate a constructive process.
I really wonder how much of the religious/philosophical motivation belongs in the by-laws at all. How much longer is the new version than the previous one? Sources seems more appropriate than Inspirations; Inclusion is needed because it makes clear that the policy of the organization is to include all, not exclude. Iām thinking about the difference between Principles and Values in terms of a legal by-law document; not yet clear on that.