Thanks, @Sally .This was part of the compromise to understand what the sources and their wording meant to different people, as well as humanists’ and others pointing out that the previous linking of and wording re science and reason were not necessarily on point. For some, using “rational” implies that the other sources are not rational. We did our best to respect every concern that was raised and seek language that might express the main points desired without over-riding anyone’s concerns. There are a few sources where you can see this especially in the wording.
In the science and humanism sources, it helped to separate them and brainstorm about what was most important in each. With science, some of the main points were the process of the experimental, peer-reviewed, data-driven aspect from which we all benefit in areas like medicine. We are also aware that many scientific endeavors have been misused for ideological reasons or profit considerations, so the “ethically” was felt important to add. In addition, we wanted to affirm that this means of engaging with the natural world around us offers its own means of wonder and appreciation of nature, as well as the practical means to engage with this world in a non-destructive, non-exploitive way. (Again, “ethically” comes into play here as well.)
In the religions’ source, we went with not listing any religions specifically, as we understood the problems of exclusion and how to group religions that the Commission encountered. Different wording was tried, but other than referring to our Unitarian and Universalist roots, none seemed to work. In the end, we ended up only referring to Unitarian Universalism and not trying to name any religions.
This was a difficult decision, because we know that UUs worked hard to have the “earth-centered” Source added, and there are many UUs who identify with and seek to add additional religions, including Islam, Buddhism, and others. I would definitely be happy to see another amendment in the future, with a group of religious professionals and scholars convened, perhaps along with CUUPs, those who have been working to have Islam added, members of specific faith fellowships within UU congregations, religious scholars, etc.
The religious source and the introduction also tried to be cognizant of multiple needs and concerns. We wanted to express gratitude for these sources in a way that acknowledges cultural appropriation (it was discussed whether to add an explicit reference, but we understood the language the Commission included about respecting the “histories, contexts, and cultures in which [they were] created and [are] currently practiced” was the preferred, more positive and explanatory perhaps, wording).
Additionally, there was quite a bit of feedback about the need for many UUs to not imply wholesale respect, one could say acquiescence to, every aspect of every religion, including traumatic abuses in the name of religion. None of us want to affirm hate-based “religious” language and practices. This is why we changed some language in the second part of the introduction, specifying that it is the “life-affirming wisdom” we respect and that we also have “care and compassion for every person’s individual path.”
The final phrase, “we discern, balance, and build upon the sources of Unitarian Universalism as we move forward” intends to affirm all these points and that the sources are held in balance, none above the other, much as the new listing of the Values placed them in a circle.
While we did not use a circle formation, we did try to follow a sequence that made sense in moving from related sources and transitioning to others. In restoring the “prophets” source that many had commented they also miss, we also responded to concerns that the secular sources did not acknowledge these visionary leaders as well. Important to include in this source was that they are all kinds of leaders, both religious and secular, who teach by example and are another mode for experiencing our growth together (as well as individual, direct experience, and generalized religious and secular sources), and reaffirm the kind of injustice they inspire us to confront.
I hope this helps explain some of the language choices, and why some of the sources seem perhaps more parsed out than others (they were!). The whole process of soliciting feedback, brainstorming, and trying to respond to all issues that were raised (as best as we could) in co-editing has been very joyful as well as challenging. It has certainly been a reminder of the work that must have gone into all the language created by the Commission so far.
This Inspirations/Sources amendment is explicitly intended as a synthesis of and reconciliation between very widely varying views and issues of importance for all of our UU siblings.
We did put a lot of thought (and love) into the editing, and it is nice to hear you can see this.