Just to be clear, I did not intend to suggest that Rev Walker was the single voice of those opposed to the amendment. The specific identification of the judeo-Christian heritage was mentioned by several as overly western-centric. Rev. Walker’s opposition is really not the point here.
Judeo-Christian heritage is NOT mentioned in this amendment. This error was left uncorrected by the mods, despite a formal request to do so and pointing out that allowing our amendment to be conflated with Amendment 1 could confuse people and impact voting.
1 Like
Once again, this amendment, amendment #51 does NOT specifically identify the “Judeo-Christian heritage.” In fact, we worked hard to write an amendment that de-centered Western religions.
Our last Con speaker, did not merely misrepresent our amendment, she out and out confused it with an a different amendment, amendment #1 which did retain this wording.
No recognition of this error or apology was made from the moderators. And this was the final (highly erroneous) word on our amendment
1 Like
@Mar can you please clarify, are you a delegate, and did you vote? Thank you.
@Mar again, please clarify. Thanks. You actually posted your support for this amendment higher up in the thread, but in your last reply, you reference others not supporting this amendment because of the “Judeo Christian” language, which is not in this Amendment but Amendment 1.
I want to thank the people who worked on this amendment for their hard work and inclusive process. I was not involved, but as an outsider thought you did a great job. I also thought your work was following up on the article II commission’s comment that if people want an updated sources section a broad group should work together to do that, taking into account concerns that have been raised (e.g., naming specific sources).
I was therefore dismayed and surprised the commission spoke against the amendment. Given that this group had followed up as they suggested, I personally think they should have stayed out of it. Their opposition after suggesting people follow this route was unfortunate, and their stance combined with the misleading discussion I think doomed the amendment.
I appreciate the commission’s hard work and responsiveness earlier in the process, I just wish they could have stepped back and let delegates grapple with this s. Digging in to make sure their revision prevailed. Personally, I am not likely to engage any more in potential revision after seeing how this played out.
Again, thank you for your efforts. I see you.
5 Likes
Thank you, @KathyKerns . In view of my concerns about this process, I have notified my delegates and minister that I have resigned from our Article II team effective immediately.
1 Like
I voted for amendment 51 but perhaps the Inclusions amendment #5 that passed would be more reflective of all UUs with a few edits that don’t (I think) alter the writers’ intent. I hope the Article 2 Commission will consider a few edits that address concerns expressed so we can be as inclusive as possible. Perhaps:
As Unitarian Universalists, [we proclaim that] direct experiences of transcending mystery and wonder [are a primary source of inspiration. These experiences] open our hearts, renew our spirits, and transform our lives. We draw upon, and are inspired by, sacred, secular, and scientific [understandings] wisdom that help us make meaning and live into our values. We are mindful of [respect] the histories, contexts, and cultures in which these understandings were created and are currently practiced. These sources ground us and sustain us in ordinary, difficult, and joyous times. Grateful for the experiences that move us, aware of the religious ancestries we inherit, and enlivened by the diversity which enriches our faith, we are called to ever deepen and expand our wisdom.
3 Likes
I too voted for 51. I hope the writers of 51 consider taking your beautiful collaborative work farther with the next amendment process of 15 congregations.
If not, I feel all the work on this amendment and others around the inspirations sent a clear message that folks wanted more from the A2SC in that section.
I also would like to see writers of this publish somewhere besides the discuss site maybe consider publishing here Chalice Lightings: Words for Worship | WorshipWeb | UUA.org because I would be happy and honored to read it as one of our chalice lighting rituals.
I’m sorry that the process of discussion on 51 went awry during GA. I’ve seen that happen before at GA where folks got unintendedly in the wrong line or spoke to the wrong thing, and I’ve seen folks do disruptive things intentionally. It reminds of the adage that going to church the practice of loving imperfect people.
4 Likes
Sorry…a lot of conflation here. I mentioned the judeo-Christian heritage as part of my argument that naming a variety of sources underlines our recognition that we are United at the root of many paths others would see as antithetical. However, it is my memory that someone in the discussion of this amendment did criticize the judeo-Christian westerness of the amendment. This comment also was pointed at the other amendment asking for the sources to be restored, so it is possible I am misremembering the two comment periods.
Mary Henninger-Voss
You are correctly remembering what was said. It was just that what said was 100% in error (the speaker confused our amendment with amendment #1 which does list religions separately. Ours does not)
I support Margie’s suggestion!! This works much better for me and for the delegates from my congregation with whom I’ve had a chance to speak.
The study commissions objections first two objections to this amendment did not make sense to me and seemed to be wordsmithing issues that could easily be resolved as the authors state above. The list issue seems to be the main objection to this amendment. I fail to see how this is such a big issue. The same logic could apply to not having a “list” of values. The study commissions proposal of values could also be seen as a forever incomplete list. That should not stop us from attempting to have a statement of our values. The only difference is that this list of values is presented in a graphical nonhierarchical way. Amendment #27 tried to address this issue and present the inspirations in the same way the values are presented. In graphical and paragraph form. I would like to hear from the study commission what its rationale for not prioritizing #27 was and if we addressed this list concern or if they still objected to #27 on other grounds.
1 Like
I have not heard of any rationale other than responding to what was on the Discuss board. If you hear one before this board is shut down on Tuesday, please let us know. Of note: Amendment #5 that was prioritized and promoted by the Commission also lists categories of sources, just more briefly, and prioritizing one.
Note to any authors/proponents of any amendments that did not pass or were not prioritized. I have heard that this site will be locked on Tuesday. Our public Facebook group, Blue Boat Passengers, created for discussing Article II and GA, will remain open for commenting a couple weeks longer (and still be visible for viewing as a public record afterwards). Those who wish to comment there may do so. 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
Addendum: Anyone who wishes to use the Blue Boat Passengers group for finding each other and coordinating to do the 15-congregation amendment process may do so while the group remains open (must follow group rules).
Here are some comments about the 15-congregation amendment process, from Donald Wilson, 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: “IMPORTANT NOTE!!!
You HAVE to check the bylaws of the local congregation. There are congregations scattered thru the entire Association who DO NOT let their Boards sign off on such a proposal and REQUIRE it to be a Congregational vote.”
“15.1(c)(4)
At the next regular General Assembly following the process described in subsection (c)(3)(v), above, the Article II proposal is subject to amendment only by a three-fourths vote in favor of an amendment submitted to the General Assembly in writing by the Board of Trustees or a minimum of fifteen (15) certified congregations, as described in Section 15.2 of these Bylaws. Final approval of the Article II proposal requires a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly
…
15.2(d)
not less than fifteen certified member congregations by action of their governing boards or their congregations; such proposed amendments to Bylaws must be received by the Board of Trustees on February 1 whenever the regular General Assembly opens in June; otherwise not less than 110 days before the General Assembly;”
The co-editors of this amendment are willing for discussion to continue and for it to be potentially presented in the 15 congregation amendment process. Please see the Blue Boat Facebook group where people may be coordinating for the next couple weeks. Also, another delegate has set up a slack group.
1 Like
Here is the thread where another delegate has suggested a provisional way to stay in the conversation, and their comment:
" Here’s an idea, although I’m just experimenting with the free version of this app. It’s called Slack, and it’s supposed to be a collaborative workspace app. I’ve created a group called Article 2 Amendment Work Group in Slack, but I don’t know if the link will work or not. Try it, and see if you can join:
UU Article 2 Amendment Work Group
I think I have a free 90-day trial on this…that should be enough to get anyone who wants to work on amendments to be considered at GA 2024 to at least get started until we find a more permanent way to communicate with one another."
Note: For anyone who tries to join Slack but fails, this is being run by @cdenario and someone else, but I will also try to post instructions later in the Facebook group, Blue Boat Passengers, cited above, for how to join if you have problems.