Amendment 19 to Article II - Proposed by Bek Wheeler

General Assembly 2023 Prioritized Article II Amendments
, , ,
21

That is great; but does that negate that people are hurt by the word, or the connotations of worthiness? Can things not be further improved even if a lot of really good work went into it?

1 Like
22

At this point, as a Delegate what opportunity do you see for further improvement? I certainly don’t see one. The work has been done by many people & congregations over months. It has made it to the 15 Prioritized Amendments. We move on from there.

2 Likes
24

At the 2000 GA, Rev. Gordon Gibson gave a presentation on the role UU ministers played, in the early 60’s, in the fight for civil rights. The people who drafted our existing principle were deeply involved in the fight to end desegregation. To them, the inherent worth and dignity reflected their rejection of the racial injustice that they saw. Are we now saying that they were wrong?

It is more than ironic that the language chosen for the fight against desegregation is now being viewed as racist. Do people even know or care about the history of the UU? The language was part of our fight back then. Every single person joining after 1961 has had the opportunity to understand the meaning given to the existing principle. The debate seems to focus on denying what I always felt was a positive chapter in our history.

5 Likes
25

Why does the proposal remove the tools that we use to defend? I’ve often heard people say they “support” something, but what they mean is they “agree.”

Defending requires the commitment of resources. If we don’t list those resources explicitly, we are watering down the commitment.

26

The team who developed this amendment discussed this issue — explicitly naming or not naming resources — in great detail. Ultimately, no list can ever be complete. One always omits something from any list.

By contrast, here, we “covenant to defend, build and sustain fully accessible and inclusive communities.” With that covenant statement, we are putting our very being behind the statement. We experience that as a very strong commitment. In some sense it is unqualified, thus broader. And to ‘covenant’ is no simple statement of ‘support.’ It means to ‘solemnly commit to…’. We take this as a very strong statement indeed.

1 Like
27

Is there a particular reason that the order is “defend, build and sustain” rather than “build, sustain, and defend”? It seems to me that “fully accessible and inclusive communities” must be built and sustained (or at least built) before they can be defended.

2 Likes
28

What a great question. I too thought that the order would be most naturally “build, sustain, and defend,” but a member of our team convinced us all otherwise.

By putting “defend” first, we intend to invoke the work of advocating, agitating and “arguing for a position — true equity.” Thus, in comparison, women in the 1960s argued for and defended the notion of equality of women. It was their commitment to, expression, illustration, debate, and defense of the notion of equity that led to our building and sustaining a society in which women are recognized as equal partners in the life of our world (of course that is a complex assertion).

But that’s the reasoning. As our team worked the Equity amendment we came to UNANIMOUS agreement on the amendment in its entirety.

And so we put debate/argument/development/convincing first, followed by building and sustaining…

Hope that makes sense…
thank you for your most apt question!

Bek Wheeler

4 Likes
29

Thanks for clarifying–much appreciated!

1 Like
30

Sir,

I am grateful for all the time your group and others have put into this amendment, but it is clear that the delegates as a whole are taking exception to some of the word choices and our voices are just as valid as your groups’ voices.

I do take exception in the phase ‘inherent dignity and worthiness’. Historically this may have been a phrasing that promoted equality and desegregation. But in current times our young people of color and of the LGBTQIA+ communities are battling with their own self worth. Suicide is way to common among our young people.

For these reasons I feel that our current up and coming generation should be offered greater dignity than they currently feel is inherent upon them.

Equity does not equal Equality. By offering equity we are offering a leg up to those who do not currently feel that they are worthy.

31

Please note that in no way is it “clear that the delegates as a whole are taking exception to some of the word choices” in this Equity Amendment. Yes, some have expressed exception to ‘worth’ in the phrase “inherent worth and dignity.” Please see Rev. Matthew’s reply to this point:

Further, we will only know what the ‘delegates as a whole’ think when the mini-assembly and hopefully, the General Assembly as a whole vote on the amendment.

The issues of human dignity and the terrible assaults suffered by LGBTQIA+ people are front and center in our concerns.

I do not understand what you are saying here:

Could you please expand? Yes, we fully affirm that not simply Equality, but instead Equity is the goal. Equity responds to the varying life circumstances in our community, communities, and world.

1 Like
32

To me, losing the specific commitments to “use our time, wisdom, attention, and money” greatly weakens the statement. Without such specific language about what we’re committing to bringing to the declaration of every person’s right to flourish with dignity, this value loses something crucial.

1 Like
33

To me, this phrase is redundant with the language under the Value of Generosity: “share our faith, presence, and resources.”

1 Like
34

And so you agree that NOT enumerating such resources is appropriate in the Equity Amendment? Thank you for seeing and realizing the redundancy…

As I mentioned in another reply, our group talked about this AT LENGTH — the list or no-list view. And truthfully, we find our proposed wording to be much more powerful than listing, for as my minister Rev. Andrew says, “something is always omitted from any list.”

Thank you for your insights!

Bek

35

I don’t find it redundant. And I’m fine with some redundancy. It’s important to me that the Equity value is specific about what we are covenanting to do to bring about Equity. I respect the work of those who drafted this amendment. That doesn’t mean I agree with the conclusions you came to or that I will vote for the amendment.

1 Like
36

Are these items really specific? As our group was discussing, I remembered someone saying “Of course we use our attention to engage.” And “of course, we’re going to think about our actions and act with our best perception, best understanding, our wisdom.” Like are we going to to just flippantly engage with Equity? No! Similarly for “time.”

One trigger for us was specifying “money.” I know of people in our congregation who bring SO MUCH — the time, talent, but have right at zero ‘treasure.’ And ‘money’ felt so crass. Yes, I know we need to discuss money. I’ve led the annual canvass and regularly talk about pledging… So we considered “financial and other resources….”

We considered referring to “all our resources,” but folks commented that truly they were not going to devote ALL their resources to equity. I mean that is the way of those who give away ALL and live as mendicant. Yes, I know that is extreme, and somewhat of a parody, but “all our resources” is not what we are talking about.

Then we realized that we were talking about ‘resources’ as an alternative to bald ‘money,’ and that really we could delete the whole phrase and COVENANT to the very specific actions — defend, build, sustain….

I’m sure I have not done justice to the intricacy of the Equity team’s reasoning, but our intent was to commit to ACTION, within our communities and beyond….

Note: after sharing this post with our team, a member reminded me of another point we explored: Every congregation has to determine what & how their resources could and would be used. If we make a list, that list may include something that can’t be done. Or we may later discover items needed but not actually listed.

Hence, for all these reasons, we moved away from listing our resources to be deployed. (Thank you Mary D for that point).

Bek Wheeler

1 Like
37

I appreciate all the effort the team put into creating this amendment. For me, it is a much stronger and more specific statement of our intent and actions. Thank you.

3 Likes
38

Thank you, Rick. It has been an inclusive, vibrant process. Ok, I don’t know if you saw my group email about the Thursday Mini-Assembly. But we need folks to EXPRESS, SHARE, EXPLORE our Equity amendment, the whys, wherefores and wonders! I can not imagine that our amendment wouldn’t be discussed Thursday, BUT if nobody talked about it, it would not be brought before the General Assembly on Saturday! Gad! Be there or be square? Thank you for your presence!!!

Bek Wheeler

39

And thank you for months of thoughtful listening & talented word smithing & coalition building, Bek!! I find myself amazed at the folks who are working together. I never would have dreamed that would happen in February or even May!!!

1 Like
40

Oh Cynthia, love, love, love. I too have been deeply moved by the collaboration, growth, creativity, reconciliation, joining, and affirming. This is and has been a BEAUTIFUL process, one of the signal times of my whole life.

Say, I have just read that the BoT is NOT taking so-called “friendly amendments” in the mini-session or general sessions. They have said that people wishing to submit such can submit them as amendments before the 6.22 mini-assembly. Wow…. Golly what a time.

Are you here at GA?

:slight_smile: Bek

2 Likes
41

FYI, this is the draft UUFMC Statement about Amendment 19:

We agree with the amended final statement for two reasons: (1) WITHOUT the amendment, it ends with a focus on the “community” rather than on “every person”; (2) just as the other Values have 3 statements each, so should the Equity Value – in order to be equitable!

However, this amendment goes back the word “worth” which some people find offensive, and it adds the word “defend” which can bring to mind violence.

We therefore do not support this Amendment as currently written.