In response to responses I’m hearing in official pro/con arguments and chats in the Zoom rooms, plus prior conversations. I’m concerned about the movement against “individualism.” I would hope that pur faith would base sone of our practices and beliefs on healthy psychology. Of course being separated from others is not very healthy, but being enmeshed with others is not healthy. I hope the movement I speak of is toward interdependence and NOT co-dependence. We have many statements encouraging interdependence, why should anyone aim to eliminate individuality?
2 Likes
This reads redundant in this section, sounds creedal, and out of synch with the A2SC charge to be in plain language. All the white speakers lifting up of individualism feels like upholding white fragility and white supremacy delusions and helps me feel a no on this one and siding with the con speakers.
After hearing the discussion today (Friday), it seems the concern that sparked this amendment stems from the use of “heritage” in the draft which can be read as referring only to the past. Perhaps the commission could consider changing this to “identity” or something else appropriate without the same connotation about time.
1 Like
That is a big part of it; also, why can we not commit to congregational freedom and individual right of conscience?
Sorry to bother you but I cannot find an email for the care team or the young man who was the moderator Friday early afternoon. Please send me one or both. The moderator misunderstood something I said snd was rude to me. I’d rather talk to him but if not I might file a complaint with the care team. Thanks
Anne Schneider, Phd. Retired political science professor and Dean, College of Public Programs
Arizona State University.
Never do something routine if you can do something truly special.
Hi @annelarason, you sent me this email, but I think you may have meant to send it to someone else?
@annelarason, I don’t know what the moderator responded to, but if it was the comment, “Or you could call me ‘it,’” in my opinion, that was beyond rude.
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;*
*Also look for the UU Governance Lab on Facebook to connect with Donald directly.
Hi @annelarason
I wonder whether you would be open to further discussion of the ideas in these posts?
I’ve been thinking more about what might facilitate a constructive Amendment process - both during the next 6 months and the additional 6 months before the next GA.
It seems difficult to tease out whether folks who voted or wanted to vote NO just “need to get used to the new language,” or whether they have substantive concerns which, if understood by the Commission, might or might not be addressed. It seems possible that the new language does not express the new ideas clearly enough so that they can be understood and embraced in the way they were intended.
It’s great that we have a lot of ideas for specific wording changes, and that the Commission can look at and consider those ideas. But it would also help to express things in general terms. If both the Commission and the folks who voted NO on the Revision package could express their respective remaining concerns in general terms, I think that would facilitate constructive work for both groups.
A list of 4 examples of this can be seen on my post under the umbrella category “Preliminary List,” but here I’ll just focus on my concern about your Amendment, number 6.
For the Freedom of Belief Section, no Amendment passed, but about 23% voted YES for Amendment 6 (freedoms part of heritage and we remain committed).
I agree that the specific wording of Amendment 6 could be improved. But I genuinely do not understand the Commission’s substantive reason (if any) for not supporting this amendment. Does their position relate to the issue of individual freedom vs. interdependent community? If so, I would like to raise the possibility of focusing on how to improve the yin/yang balance (both “individual freedom” AND “interdependent community”) within this Section.
I probably need to go back and listen again to the entire PRO line on this one. But I would appreciate if the Commission could reiterate/articulate their position officially in writing, in case that would help us move along in this constructive process.
Thanks for “listening!” I hope you, the Commission, and the people who voted or wanted to vote NO on the package will consider expressing concerns in a general format similar to the above, in order to facilitate a constructive process.
It seems to me that they are completely opposed to anything individual; want it to be 100% community-based. Whether that is to enable more centralization, as some suspect, or a reasonable concern about selfishness or some other negative aspect of individuality, I would not begin to determine, but I see their hard stance as a problem.
1 Like
Yes. I am open to more discussion on Uu smendments especially the freedom of belief / right of conscience
Anne Schneider, Phd. Retired political science professor and Dean, College of Public Programs
Arizona State University.
Never do something routine if you can do something truly special.
1 Like
There is a slack set up for Article II amendment discussions: Slack