@RevLev , agree, and there is a huge area of improvement still between vegan and the way that animals are treated in the farming and food production industry, as well as lack of concern for their habitats (longtime aquarium volunteer, here, and I wholeheartedly support this amendment). There are messages in the vegan world that may benefit all of us as we shift to a different paradigm. I see this language as broad enough to encompass all the ways in which we interact with our fellow creaturs.
1 Like
I really understand and respect your concern about the use of “protect.” I too have been concerned about language that seems to imply we are outside of the web. So I really see where you are coming from an respect that. For myself, as I’ve took time to reflect on this language, I feel that (1) it’s just so important to emphasize that we will counter the exploitation of Earth and all beings that I’m willing to have language that may lean for some ears towards removing us from the web in order to emphasize our responsibility to advocate on behalf of Earth and other beings, and I feel (2) the phrase is specific, it says “we covenant to protect Earth and other beings from exploitation,” which, for me, puts us in a relationship of protection only in terms of countering exploitation, thus keeping us within the web at all other times and aspects of relationship, and, furthermore, the statement “with humility and reverence we acknowledge (our place in) the great web of life” accentuates that the web itself doesn’t need us to protect it, “with humility” we acknowledge that it is “great,” meaning greater than us. Individual species desperately need our protection (from extinction and/or exploitation) and specific human communities, included in “other beings,” need our advocacy to protect them from climate change disasters, communities like the peoples of the South Pacific islands who though they are advocating for themselves depend on a global response to keep their homes, their very islands, from ending up under water.
We need a strong statement that brings justice and advocating to protect Earth and other beings as part of our commitment to Interdependence.
Couldn’t agree more.
Your thought is well taken, understood. I only decided to say anything because I didn’t like the lack of the word by after exploitation. It feels to me that there is a language rule there, that covenant to protect and, implied creating and nurturing… which should be to protect and to create and nurture… One could almost wonder if the meaning was to protect Earth from exploitation and from creating and nurturing sustainable relationships of care… So my thought was to move exploitation out of the way to state the positive things we want to accomplish and then explain the cause of harm and damage as exploitation.
I am most interested though in the inclusiveness of “all beings” as the primary objective of the Article II Amendment, and I greatly respect John Millspaugh’s leadership in moving this sculpture toward support.
Would you feel any better about “to which we belong”? Just wondering.
1 Like
I agree with Joe’s thoughts about retaining the last sentence. The interpretation “we blush as we acknowledge our special place, which we reverence as uniquely gifted compared to all others…” seems so disconnected from the original text that I believe it has more to do with the lens the words are seen through then the words themselves. Nowhere in “with humility and reverence, we acknowledge our place in the great web of life” does it say our place is special or that we are uniquely gifted. Anyone with that interpretation is bringing that interpretation to the reading, not getting it from the words. People can and will misinterpret any words we write if they bring that lens of “special place and uniquely gifted” to the reading. I think the conclusion that the phrase is too vague to be meaningful, just because some people misinterpreted it, is a wrong conclusion and loses a beautiful part of the covenant.
1 Like
no, it certainly would not. Many cultures honor the animals that they hunt, ensure that every part is used, and do not kill without need, without being vegan or vegetarian. Like the Ethical Eating statement of conscience passed a decade or so ago, it is about being thoughtful in one’s choices, not prescribing for anyone else.
3 Likes
For me it seems like “sustainably” is too fraught with interpretation of what is worthy of sustaining.
“Sustainability” has become such a buzzword, so often by a greenwashing corporation. . . .
1 Like
As I’ve sat with it, I feel less and less comfortable with leaving out the “our place in” phrase. It can’t be us over here acknowledging the web of life over there. I keep going back to the language proposed by the Commission.
If there is room for interpretation over what our place in the great web of life is, maybe that is just opening up fertile ground for theological exploration.
@RevJohn
I really admire and support this amendment - and especially the additions of the “repair” and “mutuality” language.
I serve on the Board of a land trust engaged with building a restorative relationship with the Massachusetts people. Two tribal elders spent quite a lot of time impressing on us the critical nature of “mutual” rather than transactional relationships as a way to foster a sustainable relationship with the earth.
Thank you so much for putting this amendment forward.
2 Likes
Again, thank you John for all of your hard work on this particular amendment and efforts to lean in and listen and respond. I support your amendment as written as a delegate myself. There will be final opportunities for amendments later by the UUA Board, I understand, or if 15 (?) congregations submit an amendment together, is that correct, before the final vote in 2024?
1 Like
Yes that’s my understanding Michelle. The Commission will do a lot to iron out the language of all of the amendments that pass, and proposers of amendments are allowed to submit revised language to the Article II commission if the amendment passes. I plan to incorporate some of the suggestions that have been shared in this thread and propose an updated version to the Commission.
1 Like
I don’t know where the post presentation discussion of Amendment 52 is taking place, but since we didn’t all get a chance to state our reasons, I am including what I have here just so it can be a part of the record…
I deeply appreciate the symbolism of our UU process here, to seek to define what we hold in common, a reflection of our greater sense of purpose together. I speak here on behalf of Article II Amendment 52.
We All face a very uncertain environmental future, that we are in crisis at the same time our human population is continuing to grow at an unprecedented rate, and our influence is ever expanding, as we hear daily how species extinctions around us loom as never before.
I sincerely support this amendment as a stronger means to recognize and respect the other beings of our mutual home in the universe, to better recognize the non-human lives of nature’s community as interwoven families who share much of our DNA, that we take steps together to better acknowledge those not fully represented here, as we work to extend the circle of our awareness. Thank you.
Given that I did not get a chance to express myself at the pro mic as desired, I would like to do so here.
I support Amendment 52 as a way to correct-- on a very small scale-- the painful omission of a substantial aspirational statement or commitment in the proposed Article II document to unite as UUs to respond, individually and collectively, to our planetary emergencies of climate change, mass extinction of species, desertification, deforestation, massive die-off of coral reefs, and pollution that currently threaten to disrupt the delicate balance of ecosystems on which we all depend. At this historical and evolutionary crossroads, where every choice matters, I urge support for amendment 52. Thank you, John.
4 Likes
I don’t support this amendment due to my Wellspring study of Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimmerer. I see the original language as being more in tune with the Indigenous perspective she shares as humans being the younger siblings of the nonhuman beings who have a lot to teach us if only we open ourselves to learning humbly. The language of “protect” and “sustainable” continue a focus of human dominination. Her language focuses on reciprocity in relationship to the earth and nonhuman beings. The last sentence calls us to repair the damage we are responsible for.
2 Likes
I was in line to speak at the PRO mic Friday just as discussion was cut off.
Here is my statement-
I support this amendment - I especially appreciate the “repair” and “mutuality” language.
I serve on the Board of a land trust engaged in building a relationship with the Massachusett people. Two tribal elders spent quite a lot of time impressing on our board the critical importance of “mutual” relationships as THE ONLY way to foster a sustainable relationship with the earth and its peoples. They were adamantly opposed to transactional relationship and we should be, too.
This amendment’s use of the words “protect” and “justice” makes the “interdependence” value more actionable and accountableas well as congruent with the concept of Beloved Community.
My entire delegation from 1st UU Society in Newton wholeheartedly supports this amendment.
2 Likes