Amendment 61 to Article II - Proposed by Jan Radoslovich

Bold underlining indicate insertion ; [brackets indicate deletion.]

I am submitting my one amendment in support of Submission #156 by Jerald Ross, First Parish in Bedford (Bedford, MA) 4212.

Insert new Section C-2-2 Historical
Principles (after Section C-2.1 Purposes and before C-2.2 Values and Covenant,
changing the numbering of that and subsequent sections accordingly (=+1).

Historically, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist
Association covenanted to affirm and promote:

  • The inherent worth and dignity of every person
  • Justice, equity and compassion in human relations
  • Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
  • A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
  • The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
  • The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all;
  • Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part

These principles remain
important to the identity, moral orientation and spiritual journey for many
Unitarian Universalists. Evolving from this historical framework, and
consistent with our Living Tradition, the following Values and Covenant section
expands the vision and calling of Unitarian Universalism.

Note: after reading through all the proposed Amendments supporting the inclusion of the current 7 Principles in the revised Article II, I felt that this Amendment was the most articulate in linking the 7 Principles to the new Values and Covenant section.


“remains important for many Unitarian Universalists” reads (intentionally?) as “are no longer values supported by some Unitarian Universalist”. Which contradicts the statement about “expanding the vision”, right?

1 Like

Can someone please explain how this is the prioritization list? Presumably it is the number that appears for the amendment now, so this would be #61 on the prioritization list (of which only 10-20 are likely to be heard)?

Appreciate the clarification @CharlesD

The numbers refer to the order in which they were received. All of them are being reviewed and considered for the priority list.

1 Like

Thanks for the clarification.

The number reflects the order in which the amendment was received.

1 Like

Jan - Thank you for submitting my proposal as an amendment. You grasped my purpose precisely. Due to health reasons I was unable to participate in the discussions and am attending GA remotely, so did not pursue submitting my proposal myself. A few others have picked up on it as well. Maybe we can retain these important shared values while opening ourselves to an evolving paradigm.
Jerald (Jerry) Ross, he/him.


Jerry, your amendment most closely reflected the sentiment of many members of our congregation. Acknowledging the historical significance of the principles in the bylaws, I think will be crucial in getting enough delegate votes for final adoption in 2024.


I disagree with that interpretation, and worry about ascribing intentionality. For me, it is a solid explanation of the status of the principles as stated in 1985 and affirmed in 2009 (by the GA delegates’ rejection of the proposed change). It acknowledges that some UUs would rather leave them intact, while others want to expand. I think that this may be a bare minimum for me to vote for a change.

Yes, Jan, but as we see already there are others who think differently. This will be a test of whether, or how, we can love alike and think differently.


1 Like

I have concern that the unchanging 7 principles stray into dogma and that we stop thinking about what the words mean in our living tradition. My greatest concern, for example, is with the language of the 5th principle, largely mimicked in the commission proposal (see my amendment #56). In reading comments here and previously, I see other very cogent expressions of concern for changing understandings of 40 year old language. Some of that old language is in fact enduring and I was pleased to see the commission re-insert much of it into their values based proposal.


I think that the existing Article II C-2.1 is much less likely to “stray into dogma” than the values and covenants of the Proposed Revision.


The following fifteen amendments also seek to add the current Article II, Section C-2.1 “Principles” (with some modifications) to the Proposed Revision:
#2 - Kenneth Button
#3 - Eric Burch
#9 - Merridy McDaniel
#29 Jim Hall
#41 Dick Burckhart
#44 Nancy Henley
#66 Pablo deVos-Deak
#78 Marsha Bates
#79 Chris Stotler
#83 Linda Richardson
#84 Becky Sandman
#49 Kara Stebbins
#58 Patrick Deak
#59 Lurine DeVos
#61 Jan Radoslovich


Merridy, Thank you for listing the amendments that support the retention of the Principles. It is a great help in navigating the 86 amendments.


Merridy, Thanks for posting this list. Clearly many people feel quite strongly about retaining the UU Principles. Many have worked carefully and collaboratively to craft updates to these Principles. Thus I’m perplexed that the only Principles-related amendment that was prioritized simply frames the Principles as a historical footnote.


This is one of the amendments the board lists as a priority, and I hardly see the principles here as a footnote; they are dead center between purposes and Values and Covenant, basically a bridge from declared purposes to the values and covenants that relate to making real those purposes.

1 Like

I am disappointed that the 8th principle is not included or even acknowledged in this amendment. As someone who would like to keep the original principles in section C. 2. I could not vote in favor of this unless the 8th principle is included. The historical context should include the fact that many congregations have individually adopted the 8 th principle, and are continuing to do so.


I would want it clear that it was being discussed when this revision was proposed. I held off on participating in discussions of that proposal, as I knew that this was pending and it never seemed to work with the other 7; it seems to me more a purpose than an actual principle, more an action than the others, so I was hoping that those issues would be resolved with the Article II revision.

There are 17 prioritized amendments for consideration of retaining some form of the 7 (or so) principles.
Of those amendment 59, 61, 66, and 84 provide for language that will integrate better with the rest of the SC revised Article II.

Perhaps the authors of these 4 amendments can settle on a course of friendly amendments that will provide a better result, should the overall will of delegates express an interest in retaining a form of the 7 (or so) principles in an amended revised Article II.

amendments 2, 3, 9, 10, 29, 41, 44, 49, 58, 78, 79, 83, and 85, appear to me to, either not provide transition language that places the historical principles within the revised Article II, or the amendments ask for greater change or to remove some (or all) of the remaining SC revised article II - beyond the 7 (or 8) principles. As a delegate, I would not likely support these amendments in their current form and perhaps there could be work to find accord with the amendments above.

I can see your point–within the current proposal the placement of the 1984 Principles could provide a bridge between stated purposes and the Values and Covenants. But there’s a good deal of evidence on the discussion boards that people regard the seven/eight UU Principles as lying at the core of the living tradition of Unitarian Universalism. And there were also many proposals that sought to update and revise those UU Principles to express more explicitly that UU’s affirm and (actively) promote inclusion, multiculturalism, interconnectedness, and are committed to anti-oppression activism in pursuit of social justice and equity.

I do not know why, rather than revising and updating Principles, the Study Commission, took a different path, and articulated a new set of UU values (and Covenants). Perhaps they tried and had substantive reasons for abandoning the path of revision. Perhaps they chose from the outset to begin anew on a different path. My comments are not intended to disparage their hard work and commitment—this is a difficult complex process requiring contributions from many thoughtful and committed individuals. Instead they stem from my concern that the Values and Covenant by focusing on single-word values, ‘decenter’ (to varying degrees) some of central tenets that are effectively articulated in the Principles.