I am personally happy with the word LOVE. However, my fellow congregants are confused by this word. Therefore, I propose to switch out LOVE with COMPASSION, rather than pursue defining LOVE. This change will help with the adoption of the proposed amendment.
10 Section C-2.2. Values and Covenant.
11 As Unitarian Universalists, we covenant, congregation-to-congregation and through our
12 association, to support and assist one another in our ministries. We draw from our heritages of
13 freedom, reason, hope, and courage, building on the foundation of compassion [love].
14 [Love] Compassion is the power that holds us together and is at the center of our shared values. We are
15 accountable to one another for doing the work of living our shared values through the spiritual
16 discipline of [Love] Compassion.
17 Inseparable from one another, these shared values are:
18 Image Description: This image is of a chalice with an overlay of the word [love] compassion over the flame,
19 with six outstretched arms that create a circle around each of the core values and form a six
20 petal flower shape. Each arm is a different color and clockwise they are: Interdependence
21 (Orange), Equity (Red), Transformation (Purple), Pluralism Dark Blue), Generosity (Teal), and
22 Justice (Yellow).
I personally like the word Love. I think my congregation might prefer the word Compassion over Love.
But I don’t think I like the idea of any single thing being the FOUNDATION or at the CENTER. It feels like it takes away freedom of belief. Some think the center is God, others think it’s the interdependent web, or transcending mystery or reason or wonder, etc. I don’t want to be told what’s at the center, and I hope I don’t try to tell others what’s at the center.
(Perhaps for me, freedom of belief is at the center. So maybe I am guilty of telling others what should be at the center? Sorry for my rant.)
I actually tend to agree with you; central implies a hierarchy, with one thought more important than the others.
I have a number of issues with this section, not sure how I feel about love vs compassion, and wondering if it is necessary to use the same word in each case (certainly the image description must use the word that is actually in the image [if we are keeping the image in the by-laws]).
I have such affection for our chalice (which is not in the by-laws) that I do not see a need for a new image and do not think an image belongs in the by-laws. Removing the image will remove the explanation of the image.
To authors of amendments that weren’t prioritized or presented: This forum is closing for comment tomorrow, but our lay-led public Facebook group, Blue Boat Passengers, will remain open for another few weeks for commenting (and still be viewable after that).
If you want to find people to coordinate with for the 15-congregation amendment process, you may use the group to do so while it remains open. There’s now a specific post for this in the group (“A post for those wishing to do the 15-congregation amendment process to coordinate”). Please read both the rules and the pinned post about the pending suspension of the group before posting or commenting there.