I am a member of the UU Church of Tallahassee support this amendment. I facilitate a group at our church, Food for Thought - a healthier you, a healthier planet and we also know that honoring all beings is of utmost importance. We need to stop thinking about animals as food - for their own benefit, for our health, and for the planet’s health. Thank you, John. This is a great amendment!
3 Likes
I’m a delegate who engaged in this discussion because my congregation wanted to add the word “sustainable”. I support the amendment. I’m also happy with the ‘rewrite’ incorporating Rachel Maxwell’s perspectives as it continues the three sentence (longer) format.
with humility I would like to offer this potential solution to sustainability. Perhaps you have already considered how to make use “restore.”
23 Interdependence. We honor the interdependent web of all existence.
24 We covenant to [cherish] protect Earth and all beings from exploitation, [by ]creating and nurturing and restoring**sustainable** relationships of care
25 and respect, mutuality and justice . With humility and reverence, we acknowledge [our place in] the great web of life,
26 and we work to repair harm and damaged relationships.
I went a little father (likely too far) with a version that places the phrase “just transition to regenerative community” in amendment 52.
23 Interdependence. We honor the interdependent web of all existence.
24 We covenant to [cherish] protect Earth and all beings from exploitation, by creating a just transition to regenerative community and of nurturing sustainable relationships of care
25 and respect~~,~~ and mutuality and justice . With humility and reverence, we acknowledge [our place in] the great web of life,
26 and we work to repair harm and damaged relationships.
which reads
Interdependence. We honor the interdependent web of all existence.
We covenant to protect Earth and all beings from exploitation, by creating a just transition to regenerative community of nurturing relationships of care and mutuality . With humility and reverence, we acknowledge the great web of life, and we work to repair harm and damaged relationships.
If using “restore” helps solve the observation that sustainable is not as relevant as we would hope, that’s great.
What follows are my meditations for using “just transition to regenerative community” and I suggest, that unless you are very focused on Interdependence as a contribution to our UUA, that you perhaps forego the following.
I have worked in climate justice, with marginalized communities and youth in my local area and I have sat in the living rooms of renewable energy customers and workshops of energy generation, heating and cooling and solar trades people all over the united states. As many acknowledge, sustainability is not a possibility. I thought about Reverend Joes request to bring forward a possibly more accurate and fitting turn of phrase. The phrase that came to mind, that was taught to me by youth and justice workers in climate action is, “just transition to regenerative community.” Then I thought of the word “restore” and… well, I think that does the job.
But, for the fun of it, I’ll explain how I arrived at just transition and all. Just transition, as I understand it, is the recognition that the burden of extreme weather and disasters falls disproportionally on the least able to afford those hazards. Centering climate action on these marginalized communities makes us all safer. Just transition also recognizes the potential economic dislocation of those supporting loved ones with their jobs, jobs that are are currently caught up in an economic system where they see their income dependent on practices that are harmful to the planet. Just transition asks all of us to work together "nurturing relationships of care and mutuality (and equity) in our actions to restore the planets living system.
Edits to create V2 "just transition to regenerative community
Regenerative on its own does not explain how we get to regenerative. I don’t think it is an exaggeration to say that we will need to regenerate nurturing systems on every level of existence on this planet. Our communities, with greater and lesser enthusiasm, will be part of our recentering of culture, to a regenerative culture. Perhaps culture is the better word for the value of Interdependence, but I left “community”
I considered the changes, to remove sustainable (adding regenerative) removing justice (adding just - which I believe puts more weight on mutuality, which is very powerful to me).
So I looked at the phrase “protect the earth”. I have a tie-die t-shirt from the very first “Whole Earth Day” every held at the UC Davis campus in 1970. It reads in big beautiful script “Save The Planet”. I think we have been missing “how” for a very long time. We have been missing “how” first because enough of us did not think we had to do anything. Second because how was (and will remain) a debate. Well, at least it’s a debate about what to do and not if we need to do anything…
From my work in climate action with Friday’s for Future (started by Gretta Thunberg), Sunrise Movement and other youth and grass roots organizations, what is resonating with them is “just transition” and regenerative community/culture/everything.
Thank you to those that have read through this long explanation. I hope your amendment, bolstered or not by this explanation, will be adopted.
1 Like
To quote a friend who attends my congregation every week, this amendment keeps us “as protectors with the power to run the planet; I would go for more of a downgrade to being equal and living sustainably with the planet and each other.”
I personally think Amendment #69 has less of the “powerful protector” flavor my friend objects to:
2 Likes
I like this proposal and regard it as having gotten across the message of “interdependence” of “all beings” which I hope is clearly representing ALL beings (while I would wish in my heart that all UU congregants would magically find it in their hearts to not eat fellow “beings”, I do think stronger language may be offensive and unkind at this point and possibly counterproductive)
One of my attractions to the UU congregation is this effort toward inclusion. I applaud your proposed Amendment 52.
5 Likes
As a delegate, I am glad to see Amendment 52 has been given priority. There can be few things more essential, at this time of existential crisis, than protecting the earth and all beings. Please give this amendment a high priority ranking.
3 Likes
Offer of a friendly amendment to addresss “sustainable”
Interdependence. We honor the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
With humility and reverence, we covenant to protect Earth and all beings from exploitation, creating**,** [and] nurturing and restoring [sustainable] relationships of care [repair], mutuality and justice.
reads:
Interdependence. We honor the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part. With humility and reverence, we covenant to protect Earth and all beings from exploitation, creating, nurturing and restoring relationships of care, mutuality and justice.
removes “sustainable” and adds “and restoring”. Adds a “,” (comma) after “creating”.
“repair” is removed as it is somewhat duplicative of “restoring.” Removing "repair, left room to put “care” back in place, which felt powerful .
Adding restoring provides relevance and leaves out the compromise of “sustainable.” As was discussed, sustainable, is not where we are with our interdependence. Interdependence is going to ask all of us to restore and nurture. Sustainable happens when we are equitably coasting in the wake of happily restored ecosystem and that won’t be for some time from now.
4 Likes
So…. IS there a process for such friendly amendments? Is it in the mini assembly? Or in the full GA? Or Both?
Even so, given the very extensive and tight discernment going on in some of these groups on amendments already, I can’t see how the wordings could be changed now. In my eyes, to change wording at this point would not represent the articulated position of those who developed the amendments.
2 Likes
I am a delegate and support this amendment.
2 Likes
Let us see if there is room for “restoring” as a friendly amendment to 52 - it’s not mine to decide. I am hoping there is some plasticity in or considerations at a mini-assembly.
John,
First of all, I really appreciate all the work you are doing on this!
I prefer the version where you incorporate Rev. Joe and Rachel Maxwell’s perspectives. I’ve been very conflicted about this amendment because I both feel it adds some important elements and loses some of what I like the most about the commission’s version. This version keeps more of what I like in the commission’s version. More and more, as I sit with it, I feel the crucial component your amendment adds is the word “protect” and, even more importantly, naming the exploitation of Earth and all beings and working to counter that. I still prefer “we acknowledge our place in the great web of life” but your crucial additions of “protect Earth and all beings from exploitation” and adding relationships of “mutuality and justice,” with or without “care and respect,” have won me over. The congregation I service are the people advocating for the inclusion of “sustainable.” I support including that but it isn’t a make it or break it for me. If you feel the flow works better without it, from my point of view, that can stay or be dropped. I hope these comments are helpful. And, again, thank you for all your work on this!
23 Interdependence. We honor the interdependent web of all existence.
24 We covenant to [cherish] protect Earth and all beings from exploitation, [by ]creating and nurturing sustainable relationships of care
25 and respect, mutuality and justice . With humility and reverence, we acknowledge [our place in] the great web of life,
26 and we work to repair harm and damaged relationships.
3 Likes
Some food for thought from one of my congregation’s friends (which I agree with in concept):
"This amendment implies that humans, rather than nature itself, need to protect the earth from… humans. Nature is working harder than humans do to stay in balance. Another approach to interdependence is to BE interdependent instead of engineering interdependence while remaining outside the interdependent web. Instead of using this amendment, I recommend adopting Amendment 69 proposed by Stephen Eckstrand: Interdependence. We honor the interdependent web of all existence. We covenant to cherish Earth and all [beings] living things by creating and nurturing relationships of care and respect. With humility and reverence, we acknowledge our place in the great web of life, and we work to repair past harm and [damaged relationships] to live sustainably in the future.”
1 Like
FYI, this is the draft UUFMC Statement about Amendment 52:
This amendment implies that humans, rather than nature itself, need to protect the earth from… humans. Nature is working harder than humans do to stay in balance. Another approach to interdependence is to BE interdependent instead of engineering interdependence from outside the interdependent web.
Instead of using this amendment, we recommend adopting Amendment 69 proposed by Stephen Eckstrand: Interdependence. We honor the interdependent web of all existence. We covenant to cherish Earth and all [beings] living things by creating and nurturing relationships of care and respect. With humility and reverence, we acknowledge our place in the great web of life, and we work to repair past harm and [damaged relationships] to live sustainably in the future.”
In addition to the edits of Amendment 69, we also prefer to delete the word “covenant,” to sound less like we are reciting and intoning a creed, and to allow the other verbs to speak for themselves.
I like this very much too! Thanks for the clarification, John
1 Like
I really like this proposed new language for the revision. You have thought the issues out thoroughly and listened to others. This is an important topic and will be valuable for this amendment to pass.
1 Like
The inclusion of ‘all beings’ is so exciting to be evolving into our Principles. This current version is such a carefully distilled statement, but the flow doesn’t bring perfect satisfaction to me. I didn’t understand the removal of the by mechanism that separates the negative quality of exploitation from the healing restorative powers of care, respect, mutuality and justice. What about removing the negative exploitation from residing in the initial positive declaration, and moving that causal term to link to the repair of harms our species has inflicted on other beings through mistaken beliefs. That revision would read:
We covenant to [cherish] protect Earth and all beings by creating and nurturing sustainable relationships of care and respect, mutuality and justice. With humility and reverence, we acknowledge [our place in] the great web of life and we work to repair harm and damaged relationships brought by exploitation.
As a delegate, I strongly support this amendment
Would this amendment require all UUs to become vegan? If so, I strongly oppose. Many people cannot go vegan for a number of reasons, so I respect every individual’s struggle to balance their beliefs and our capitalistic society to create the level of ethical behavior they are capable of.
I appreciate your attempt at improving the flow of the statement but I don’t like your flow as much as John Millspaugh’s version’s flow.
1 Like
For me this amendment is open enough to interpretation to leave it up to the individual to decide whether they are called to become vegan or not. I think it would likely encourage more of us to move towards a vegan or more vegan diet but does not require anyone to do so. I am not a vegan and certainly don’t see my support for this amendment requiring me to become a vegan.
1 Like